Subject: [Ltru] 2nd WG last call: Abstract

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:18:50 +0900

The abstract is one of the most important pieces of a document.
Given this, I feel that ours could need some work. I have felt
that way for a long time, but I thought I'd wait until the
content doesn't change anymore. The abstract currently
reads:

    This document describes different mechanisms for comparing and
    matching language tags.  Possible algorithms for language negotiation
    or content selection, filtering, and lookup are described.  This
    document, in combination with RFC 3066bis (Ed.: replace "3066bis"
    with the RFC number assigned to draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14),
    replaces RFC 3066, which replaced RFC 1766.

Which effectively just is:

    This document describes different mechanisms for comparing and
    matching language tags.  Possible algorithms for language negotiation
    or content selection, filtering, and lookup are described.  This
    document, in combination with RFC XXXX, replaces RFC 3066, which
    replaced RFC 1766.

I propose to change this as follows:

    This document describes a syntax, called language-range, for indicating
    language preferences, and different mechanisms for comparing and
    matching language tags.  Two kinds of matching mechanisms, filtering
    and lookup, are defined.  Filtering produces a potentially empty list
    of language tags, whereas lookup produces a single language tag.
    Possible applications include language negotiation or content selection.
    This document, in combination with RFC 3066bis (Ed.: replace "3066bis"
    with the RFC number assigned to draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14), replaces
    RFC 3066, which replaced RFC 1766.

Regards,    Martin. 

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:10:46 -0700

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> But empty lists are not lists at all... :-)

To a programmer's mind, a list (ordered set) can be empty, just as an 
unordered set can be.

I agree that to a non-programmer's mind, this might seem absurd, and the 
draft is probably intended to be read by both species.  Would it be 
better to say "set" in this context?

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/