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: "Jukka K. Korpela" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:32:16 +0300 (EEST)

>   Possible applications include language negotiation or content selection.

Looks much more informative. In the last sentence of the part that I 
quoted, I think the order should be different, corresponding to the order 
in which filtering (which is usually for content selection) and lookup 
have been mentioned, and "and" would sound like a more suitable 
conjunction than "or":

"Possible applications include content selection and language negotiation."

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:09:27 -0400

>    RFC 3066, which replaced RFC 1766.

+1

-- 
John Cowan    <[email-masked]>     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
But no living man am I!  You look upon a woman.  Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter.
You stand between me and my lord and kin.  Begone, if you be not deathless.
For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:10:07 -0400

+1

-- 
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies!    John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:23:34 +0100

Martin wrote:

> Filtering produces a potentially empty list
>    of language tags

Do you really want to say this?  Surely if the list is empty there are no
tags!

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 16 May 2006 14:09
To: Martin Duerst
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] 2nd WG last call: Abstract

+1

-- 
John Cowan    <[email-masked]>     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
But no living man am I!  You look upon a woman.  Eowyn I am, Eomund's
daughter.
You stand between me and my lord and kin.  Begone, if you be not deathless.
For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:29:35 -0400

> Do you really want to say this?  Surely if the list is empty there are no

Sure.  It's like "a potentially empty bucket of clams"; if the bucket
is empty (as when you've eaten every one) there are no clams.  Empty
lists are a very familiar concept to developers.

-- 
Andrew Watt on Microsoft:                       John Cowan
Never in the field of human computing           [email-masked]
has so much been paid by so many                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to so few! (pace Winston Churchill)

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:30:47 +0100

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

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 16 May 2006 14:30
To: Debbie Garside
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] 2nd WG last call: Abstract

Debbie Garside scripsit:

> Do you really want to say this?  Surely if the list is empty there are 
> no tags!

Sure.  It's like "a potentially empty bucket of clams"; if the bucket is
empty (as when you've eaten every one) there are no clams.  Empty lists are
a very familiar concept to developers.

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 07:31:47 -0700

> Do you really want to say this?  Surely if the list is empty there are no

Yes, exactly so: Lists may be empty.

Technically, the word "set" would probably be more correct than the word
"list". List implies something about the ordering of the values, while set
contains no such implications. Some applications may choose to use a list,
but this isn't strictly a requirement of the filtering algorithms.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 

> From: Debbie Garside [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 2006?5?16? 6:24
> To: 'John Cowan'; 'Martin Duerst'
> Cc: 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] 2nd WG last call: Abstract
> 
> Martin wrote:
> 
>

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:42:19 -0700

Okay, except that it neglects to mention the language priority list. I
borrowed and adapted, instead, text from the Introduction to make the
abstract read:

--
This document describes a syntax, called a "language-range", for specifying
items in a user's list of language preferences, called a "language priority
list". It also describes different mechanisms for comparing and
matching these to language tags.  Two kinds of matching mechanisms,
filtering and lookup, are defined.  Filtering produces a potentially empty
set 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.
--

Addison Phillips

> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 2006?5?16? 3:19
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] 2nd WG last call: Abstract
>