Subject: [Ltru] Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-ltru-matching

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:06:13 -0800

I have read through draft-ietf-ltru-matching-11 and the minor changes 
proposed in draft-12, and have no substantial objections to any of it.

I note that proposals are still on the board to "pretty up" the text. 
There are more than 4,400 RFCs and I don't believe I have seen a single 
one with what I would consider "perfect" wording of every sentence.  I 
would like to suggest that we have reached the point of diminishing 
returns, and that unless the meaning or expected interpretation of a 
passage is in doubt, getting this work finished should take precedence 
over further text beautification.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Editor, draft-ietf-ltru-initial

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:00:35 -0500

> over further text beautification.

Well, okay, then.  I'll omit, as too trivial to mention, the ugly sequence
of two parenthesized clauses in the penultimate paragraph of Section 2.1.

But I think the SHOULD NOT in 2.2 just after Figure 2 ought not to be
capitalized (and maybe changed to "cannot").

And the claim in 3.3 that an empty xml:lang attribute indicates that
the element it's on contains non-linguistic content is flat wrong.
And yes, I said that myself on this list.  But it's still wrong.
It simply indicates that that element makes no declaration of language,
and is needed because a document without xml:lang may wind up embedded
inside a document that has xml:lang.

And in Section 4.1, the example in the 4th graf doesn't say whether it's
about filtering or lookup, though it needs to.  And in the 6th graf,
the claim "Lookup implementations often ignore ..." is a factual one,
and needs to be changed unless it can be proved.

And that's really, really all I have to say.

-- 
"But I am the real Strider, fortunately,"       John Cowan
he said, looking down at them with his face     [email-masked]
softened by a sudden smile.  "I am Aragorn son  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
of Arathorn, and if by life or death I can      http://www.ap.org
save you, I will."  --LotR Book I Chapter 10

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:54:29 -0800

If there are errors in the draft, or things missing from the draft that 
need to be present, then of course those should be fixed.  That's not 
what I mean by "prettying up" the  text.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:43:01 +0900

[chair hat on]

Hello Doug,

Many thanks for your reading of the draft.

I fully agree that we should concentrate on issues that may avoid
misunderstandings, rather than on pure wordsmithing.

Regards,   Martin.

 >I note that proposals are still on the board to "pretty up" the text. 
There are more than 4,400 RFCs and I don't believe I have seen a single one 
with what I would consider "perfect" wording of every sentence.  I would 
like to suggest that we have reached the point of diminishing returns, and 
that unless the meaning or expected interpretation of a passage is in 
doubt, getting this work finished should take precedence over further text 
beautification.

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:26:47 -0800

Comments follow.

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 2006?3?25? 21:01
> To: Doug Ewell
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-ltru-matching
> 
> Doug Ewell scripsit:
> 

Okay. You failed to mention it and I'll fail to notice that both
parentheticals are now removed. :-)
> capitalized (and maybe changed to "cannot").

Yes. Done.
> inside a document that has xml:lang.

... and which makes no difference to the meaning. I removed the erroneous
phrase thusly:

--
<t>with an empty language tag value, in cases where the protocol permits the
empty value (see, for example, "xml:lang" in <xref
target="XML10"></xref>)</t>
--
> and needs to be changed unless it can be proved.

The 4th graf was addressed by Martin's comment, I believe.

I tend to agree with the second comment, although I note that the section on
Lookup actually has a normative SHOULD recommending this. Might I suggest:

--
<xref target="lookup">Lookup</xref> implementations are advised to ignore 
unrecognized private-use and extension subtags when performing language tag
fallback.
--

Or we could just remove the sentence.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:31:02 -0500

> parentheticals are now removed. :-)

Ah, good.  (This comes from Cicero's first oration against Cataline,
where he is pointing out precedents for summary execution:  "I omit,
as too antiquated to mention, the case of X, who ...")

> Lookup actually has a normative SHOULD recommending this. Might I suggest:

"Advised" looks like a SHOULD, and as you say we already have one.  Blow
the sentence away, is my advice.

-- 
First known example of political correctness:   John Cowan
After Nurhachi had united all the other         http://www.ap.org
Jurchen tribes under the leadership of the      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Manchus, his successor Abahai (1592-1643)       [email-masked]
issued an order that the name Jurchen should       --S. Robert Ramsey,
be banned, and from then on, they were all         The Languages of China
to be called Manchus.

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:45:01 -0800

> the sentence away, is my advice.

Would. But the previous sentence makes the missing content obvious. Perhaps:

--
These subtags can interfere with <xref target="lookup">Lookup</xref>,
implementations of which are advised to ignore unrecognized private-use and
extension subtags.
--

Addison

Addison Phillips

> Sent: 2006?3?30? 14:31
> To: Addison Phillips
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:17:11 -0800

+1