Subject: [Ltru] 2nd WG last call: Language improvement

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:37:10 +0900

[This is somehow the 'misc' bucket of my comments.]

Here is a sentence that I think is too complicated:

    This allows some flexibility in finding a match.  For example, lookup
    provides better results for cases in which content is not available
    that exactly matches the user request than if the default language
    for the system or content were returned immediately.

    'that' and 'than' in the same sentence, and the length of the sentence,
    make this difficult to read. I propose:

    This fallback behavior allows some flexibility in finding a match.
    Without fallback, in the case that content that exactly matches is
    not available, the default content would be returned immediately.
    The fallback in lookup will make sure that a better result (i.e.
    content more closely matching the user request) is made available
    if it exists.

    (any other fix that keeps the meaning while simplifying the long
    sentence is also okay with me)

Here's some typo:

    since these ranges will won't match any valid language tags.

    will won't -> will not

The first para in the introduction:

    Human beings on our planet have, past and present, used a number of
    languages.  There are many reasons why one would want to identify the
    language used when presenting or requesting information or in some
    specific set of information items.

Every time I read this, I have problems parsing the second sentence.
What about rewording as follows:

                There are many reasons why one wants to identify the
    language used when presenting or requesting information, or the
    language used in some specific set of information items.

Just before 3.4:

                         This is the reason why a wildcard in the
    extended language range is significant in the first position and
    subsequently ignored.

I think this is easier to read if it says:

                         This is the reason why a wildcard in the
    extended language range is significant in the first position, but
    is subsequently ignored.

Regards,     Martin. 

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:43:48 -0400

Martin Duerst scripsit:

As before, an omitted item means +1.  This completes my review^2,
since Addison already dealt with the substantive point.  It can be
hard to grasp what extended matching does: basically, it skips
over subtags that it can prove have no counterparts on the other
side of the match.  But it cannot skip a singleton, as what
appears to the right of a singleton doesn't obey the usual rules
for subtag lengths.

>    content more closely matching the user request) is made available

How about this:

        This fallback behavior allows some flexibility in finding
        a match.  Without fallback, the default content would be
        returned immediately if exactly matching content is unavailable.
        With fallback, a result more closely matching the user request
        can be provided.

>    extended language range is significant in the first position, but

I propose "but is ignored in all other positions", to block the
interpretation that "subsequently" refers to time rather than space.

-- 
Unless it was by accident that I had            John Cowan
offended someone, I never apologized.           [email-masked]
        --Quentin Crisp                         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:50:39 -0700

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?5?16? 6:44
> To: Martin Duerst
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] 2nd WG last call: Language improvement
> 
> >

Good. Done.
> interpretation that "subsequently" refers to time rather than space.

Done.

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:54:39 -0700

And lastly... comments follow...

Addison Phillips

> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 2006?5?16? 3:37
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] 2nd WG last call: Language improvement
> 

Dealt with in John Cowan's message.

Done.
>     language used in some specific set of information items.

:: sigh :: RFC 3066bis has, in the same position:

--
There are many reasons why one would want to identify the language used when
presenting or requesting information.
--

The addition of "set" I guess has to do with the fact that matching schemes
produce sets of content and not necessarily just a single information item.
Nonetheless, the 3066bis formulation is every bit as effective and less
verbose. I restored it here.
> Just before 3.4:
Also dealt with previously.