At 15:09 +0000 2001-03-06, John Clews wrote:

>(b) in some programming languages and applications, the use of _only_
>     2-letter codes for languages seems to have been built into the
>     system design, and overcoming this limitation, and coping with
>     backwards compatibility, is NOT a trivial task.


"Some" programming languages?

"Seems" to have been built into the system design?

This is not, John, adequate to counter a single one of my arguments
which are based on a huge reality. Note please that
searches 1,346,966,000 web pages. Whether you call that 1.3 billion
or 1.3 thousand million web oages, it is still far, far, far, far,
far, far, far more real than the statements the TC37 representatives
have been making.

>These are not simply "pie-in-the-sky theoretical considerations" as
>Michael Everson suggests, later in his email.

Facts would be nice, John.

>I think that RFC 3066 _WILL_ have to be rewritten to reflect this
>exact point. Not doing so will make for all sorts of confusions.
>It can be done in a way which will keep work to a minimum.

No, it will have to be rewritten because you lot are going back on your word.
And for no demonstrable reason that I can see.

>It will take very little rewriting of RFC 3066 to make it work:
>instead of refering to ISO 639-1 for 2-letter codes, refer simply to:

It takes up to a year of discussion and approval, and in the meantime
we have RFC 3066 which you seem happy enough to dismantle, but which
is guiding people already. And so you'll (the figurative collective
who wants to break the agreement made) just make us rewrite it
because you don't really care whether people can rely on the
stability of standards and of the resolutions standardizers make in
order to handle real-world problems.

>As I recall, freezing 2-letter codes in Internet use at this point
>(ISO 639:1988) was Michael Everson's _original_ proposal, prior to
>his later proposal of freezing ISO 639-1 2001 (not yet published):
>the Internet community should not tie itself to yet unpublished
>standards, a position which RFC 3066 currently gets quite near,
>as it stands now.

The agreement was to choose to freeze it after the publication, in
order to allow all of you to add whatever you thought was needful now.

You have yet to show cause why you cannot bite the bullet and keep
your agreement for the greater good. It is for the greater good that
the agreement was made. The ideas you gave for "fixing" this
situation simply put the burden of a whole bunch of other people,
including myself, to fix something which, if the 639-1'ers will just
keep their word, doesn't need fixing.

Michael Everson
Language-Tag Reviewer, RFC 3066