Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: html tag ethics

From: Steven Belknap <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:40:40 -0600

On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 05:15 AM, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
>> Even you refer to "Loglan", meaning TLI's implementation of JCB's 
>> idea,
>
> We officially use "TLI Loglan" to refer to JCB's language. If we were 
> to
> only use "Loglan" to refer to JCB's language, and only use "Lojban" for
> ours, we could undo the court-ruling that "Loglan" is generic.

I would prefer to use TLI Loglan to refer to the ancestor language and 
Loglan to refer to the currently active language. In the interests of 
clarity for those who lack a full appreciation for the history of the 
language, I have agreed to use LLG Loglan for the active language for a 
brief time. I will now only use lojban when writing in LLG Loglan. 
Which reminds me that all this political nonsense is interfering with 
my actual learning of LLG Loglan.

>>> => using keywords in the meta description tag which is not related 
>>> to the
>>> page content"
>>
>>> Loglan is certainly "related" to lojban. Some people say lojban *is* 
>>> Loglan.
>>> (I think they are different words in different languages for the same
>> thing.)
>>
>> You know full well that's not the kind of relationship they mean.
>
> I don't think he does.

Correct. I meant what I said. If somebody has a better interpretation 
of the official LLG position "lojban is Loglan", please tell us.

> But the bottom line is that we are trying to cooperate with TLI, not to
> undercut them (at this stage, they'll live or die without our help), 
> and
> perceptions can be more important than reality. If we start promoting
> "Loglan" on our web pages merely in order to get hits from Steven's 500
> looking for Loglan, it LOOKS to everyone else like "hype" and 
> "poaching",
> and will be understood by TLI and by most readers as such. It would be
> better to negotiate a relationship whereby TLI puts a more prominent 
> link
> on their page pointing to ours as another implementation of JCB's ideas
> with an active community, and we put a respectful link on our page
> acknowledging their site as documenting what we recognize as the
> predecessor language to Lojban. This is honest, aboveboard, and
> communicates the way the languages relate to each other.
>
> That is the sort of thing I am trying to do with Bob McIvor (and if 
> he and
> Robin want to work out mutually acceptable wording for mutual pointers
> along the lines I describe above, I approve)

I support this approach. When the web pages mutually link and the two 
communities are comfortably at peace, I would support going a step 
further-including Loglan in the title of the lojban.org web page.

-Steven