Re: discuss pronunciation registration with i18n?

Thanks for the reminder.  Public is fine for me to answer questions  
you may have or to explain our rationale, since the IETF document  
itself is in a public forum.  If at some point we need a member-only  
meeting I will let you know.

Talk with you tomorrow!

-- dan

On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:

> Hi Dan,
> I'll copy you on our agenda, which includes all the IRC and Zakim  
> goodness.
> Please note: the I18N Core WG is a "public" working group. If you  
> need us to be member-only for this discussion, please let me know so  
> that I can make the necessary arrangements.
> Addison
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Burnett []
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:30 PM
>> To: Phillips, Addison
>> Cc:;;;
>> Subject: Re: discuss pronunciation registration with i18n?
>> Addison, I can join you for your teleconference tomorrow.  If we
>> encounter questions I cannot answer without recourse to other group
>> members we can arrange a follow-up meeting.
>> Can you please send me email directly with your zakim code?
>> -- dan
>> On Jan 12, 2010, at 5:39 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
>>> Hello Daniel (et al),
>>> I am writing on behalf of the I18N Core WG. We recently have
>>> received a number in inquiries about an IETF Internet-Draft
>> prepared
>>> by members of your WG and related to work on SSML and PLS. This
>> is
>>> draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.
>>> There is some concern in the Language Tagging and I18N
>> communities
>>> that your approach to identifying pronunciation alphabets might
>> not
>>> be the best choice for future needs of your users or for
>> language/
>>> pronunciation identification. The thought is that the attribute
>> you
>>> use for pronunciation alphabet maybe should use a language tag
>> and
>>> that your registry should be an extension of BCP 47 language tags.
>>> You and I reviewed this together during TPAC and I think I
>>> understand the reasons for the approach your WG choose. However,
>> we
>>> would like to ensure that the I18N WG understands and documents
>> your
>>> reasons well and the WG as a whole would like to consider whether
>> we
>>> would recommend something different. As a result, I have been
>> asked
>>> to invite you and/or appropriate representatives of your WG to
>> meet
>>> with us in one of our upcoming teleconferences or at some
>> mutually
>>> agreeable time.
>>> Or next teleconference is tomorrow, Wednesday, 13 January, at
>> 17:30
>>> UTC (12:30 Boston, 9:30 San Francisco). If this is not convenient
>> (I
>>> realize this is late notice), we could also meet next week or at
>>> some other time, if you'd care to propose it.
>>> Please advise as to your availability and whether you have any
>>> comments/concerns/questions I can help prep you with.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Addison (for I18N Core WG)
>>> Addison Phillips
>>> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>>> Internationalization is not a feature.
>>> It is an architecture.

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 00:39:58 UTC