Subject: Re: Introduction (was: Re: [Ltru] draft-ietf-ltru-rfc4646bis-08)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:27:50 -0700

I am in fairly weak agreement with Marion over the introductory text. 
The wording about human beings on our planet, past and present, has 
certainly been around since RFC 3066, but RFCs have become more formal 
in their wording (and in other ways) since then.  RFC 4646 is over four 
times as long as 3066 and might call for a different approach.  The 
current wording has also been parodied more than once in other 
documents.

I'm not so sure about putting a Definitions section near the front. 
Like Martin, I've also had trouble with ISO documents that start me off 
with pages of definitions of terms I've never seen before, and no 
context in which to place them.  Usually I look for such reference 
material near the end of a document, not the beginning.  What is 
important is that all such material be in an easy-to-find place.

However, at this stage it is much more important to me that we resolve 
the real technical debate over extlangs, and get the drafts to WG Last 
Call, than to engage in fine-tuning and wordsmithing at this level.  The 
current wording doesn't cause any confusion or misinterpretation.  If we 
weren't already half a year behind schedule, I would probably care more 
about this.

--
Doug Ewell · Fullerton, California, USA · RFC 4645 · UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:16:27 +0000

> I am in fairly weak agreement with Marion over the introductory text.

:-)

> certainly been around since RFC 3066, but RFCs have become more  
> formal in their wording (and in other ways) since then.

Exactly. There is nothing so out of date as last year's fashion, and  
nothing so likely to irritate professional readers as informal  
language where we feel it is out of place.

> RFC 4646 is over four times as long as 3066 and might call for a  
> different approach.  The current wording has also been parodied  
> more than once in other documents.
>
> Like Martin, I've also had trouble with ISO documents that start me  
> off with pages of definitions of terms I've never seen before, and  
> no context in which to place them.

As a terminologist, that's _exactly_ were I expect to find them (like  
the key we expect to be fronted in most dictionaries).

> Usually I look for such reference material near the end of a  
> document, not the beginning.  What is important is that all such  
> material be in an easy-to-find place.

I find myself in strong agreement with Doug on that (first or last  
placement is less important than _inclusion_ of keys/definitions).

>
> However, at this stage it is much more important to me that we  
> resolve the real technical debate over extlangs, and get the drafts  
> to WG Last Call, than to engage in fine-tuning and wordsmithing at  
> this level.  The current wording doesn't cause any confusion or  
> misinterpretation.  If we weren't already half a year behind  
> schedule, I would probably care more about this.

I haven't been minding any schedule to do with this. Part of the  
problem in maintaining continuous transatlantic dialogue is that US  
citizens are only coming to life as workers in the rest of the "West"  
are winding down for the day (we French, Irish, German workers are  
finding our mailboxes suddenly filling up with US mail as we are  
clearing our desks for the day - unless one stays on to give it a  
quick once-over, it is hard to come cold to the debate next morning).

Then again, I suppose we could - as so many US ex-pats do over here -  
sleep until noon, breakfast at lunchtime and only schedule business  
mtgs for after 4 pm and real hard work from then until 3am, but we'd  
have to be unemployed or self-employed to make that system work, and  
our neighbours might shun us vampires!:-)

Long way of saying sorry to raise such points as affect the structure  
so late in the work schedule, but I'd rather raise such points while  
the doc. is still in draft form than not at all. To me, "fine-tuning  
and wordsmithing" are non-structural matters, changing the structure  
something definitely to do at drafting stage.

In any case, I would not in any way wish my comments to delay  
progress to final draft, so feel free not to mind what I have  
suggested at this stage. Now, signing off for mid-day break (12:10  
here).

mg

- -
Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* [email-masked] * [email-masked] *

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:32:00 -0700

Hi -

As co-chair....

My experience in the IETF is that the time to do "word-smithing" is
*BEFORE* a working group last call.  The later we are in the process,
the greater the reluctance to change *anything* will become, due
to concerns about inadvertantly breaking something.  Though not yet
at the WG last call stage, we are quite late, and the reluctance to make
changes is starting to show.

This is quite different from how things may work in some other
organizations that people on this list may be accustomed to,
particularly ones with official "editing meetings".  But when in Rome...
Remember: after completion of a WG last call and production of an update
succefully addressing last call comments, only changes resulting
from the IESG and the IETF last call comments are considered, and
generally only "show stoppers" are required to be addressed.

Consequently, if you would like to see an editorial change, I ask
that you please propose specific  text for discussion sooner rather
than later.

Randy

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:17:47 +0100

Doug wrote:

> Like Martin, I've also had trouble with ISO documents that
> start me off with pages of definitions of terms I've never
> seen before, and no context in which to place them.  Usually
> I look for such reference material near the end of a
> document, not the beginning.  What is important is that all
> such material be in an easy-to-find place.

In general, I have found that I cannot understand an ISO document unless I
refer to the Terms and Definitions section.  I am in agreement with Doug,
whether it be placed front or back matters not but I think to devise a Terms
and Definitions section would be very useful to newbies.  It would also
cement the terminology for ease of use in other documents wishing to
reference the RFC.

Best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 29 August 2007 06:28
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: Introduction (was: Re: [Ltru]
> draft-ietf-ltru-rfc4646bis-08)
>
> The wording about human beings on our planet, past and
> present, has certainly been around since RFC 3066, but RFCs
> have become more formal in their wording (and in other ways)
> since then.  RFC 4646 is over four times as long as 3066 and
> might call for a different approach.  The current wording has
> also been parodied more than once in other documents.
>
> Like Martin, I've also had trouble with ISO documents that
> start me off with pages of definitions of terms I've never
> seen before, and no context in which to place them.  Usually
> I look for such reference material near the end of a
> document, not the beginning.  What is important is that all
> such material be in an easy-to-find place.
>
> However, at this stage it is much more important to me that
> we resolve the real technical debate over extlangs, and get
> the drafts to WG Last Call, than to engage in fine-tuning and
> wordsmithing at this level.  The current wording doesn't
> cause any confusion or misinterpretation.  If we weren't
> already half a year behind schedule, I would probably care
> more about this.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell . Fullerton, California, USA . RFC 4645 . UTN #14

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:04:12 +0000

I am in total agreement with DG on this matter (as set out below in  
her msg of today - as cited below - which msg of hers echoes the  
substance of one of mine of yesterday, I believe).
mg

On 30 Aug 2007, at 15:17, scríobh Debbie Garside:

> ... I think to devise a Terms

- -

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:26:46 -0700

I find the typical Terms and Definitions sections at the start of many ISO
documents actually counter-productive. The items are presented before you
have any background for what the definitions really mean, and are in no
cohesive order.

As you read the document, each technical term should be defined in the
paragraph where it is first used. If that is not the case, then please make
specific suggestions for additions to the text.

I'm not, in theory, against having a glossary of collected terms at the end
of the document for reference. But I don't think it is worth the time and
effort compared to getting the "first usage" instances correct. And it might
better go in a "Language Tag Tutorial".

Mark

-- 
Mark

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:38:58 +0000

On 30 Aug 2007, at 16:26, scríobh Mark Davis:

> I find the typical Terms and Definitions sections at the start of  
> many ISO documents actually counter-productive. The items are  
> presented before you have any background for what the definitions  
> really mean, and are in no cohesive order.

Alphabetical order is cohesive enough for most professional users.  
Added to that, even for newbies, it is predictable, logical,  
consistent with ISO documents in general, with which one would expect  
most users of this list to be familiar.

>
> As you read the document, each technical term should be defined in  
> the paragraph where it is first used. If that is not the case, then  
> please make specific suggestions for additions to the text.

Is that the case with regard to this particular document, Mark? Or -  
rather than asking that question -  let us assume that it is, then  
have its editors simply cut and past each "first use mention" into a  
"Terms and Definitions" section, so that it can be used by those used  
to using dictionaries and ISO documents with the same ease as it can  
be ignored by those who are not.

>
> I'm not, in theory, against having a glossary of collected terms at  
> the end of the document for reference.

Good. It would be a worry if you were against including in the  
document a glossary of collected terms (I say this because I  
generally find myself in agreement with much of the content of many  
of your msgs, and would not like this to be different).

> But I don't think it is worth the time and effort compared to  
> getting the "first usage" instances correct. And it might better go  
> in a "Language Tag Tutorial".

If you are proposing to compose a "Language Tag Tutorial", that would  
probably be useful, as well  (but much more work for you to compile  
than the usual "Terms and Definitions" component users of ISO  
standards find so handy for ref.).
mg

- -

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:46:33 -0700

On 8/30/07, Marion Gunn <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Alphabetical order is cohesive enough for most professional users. Added
> to that, even for newbies, it is predictable, logical, consistent with ISO
> documents in general, with which one would expect most users of this list to
> be familiar.
>

I disagree. I've hit many instances where the definition of an ISO term
makes no sense until you've read enough of the way through the document to
understand it. Alphabetical is fine for reference *after* you've read the
document, but it is a nice to have, and not a requirement.

We are not writing an ISO document, and there is no requirement to follow
its format.

> rather than asking that question -  let us assume that it is, then have its
> editors simply cut and past each "first use mention" into a "Terms and
> Definitions" section, so that it can be used by those used to using
> dictionaries and ISO documents with the same ease as it can be ignored by
> those who are not.
>

No. I'm saying that if you personally, or anyone else on this list, finds a
case where a term is not clear on first usage, then you should point it out
and suggest additional text at that point.

> of the document for reference.
>
>
> Good. It would be a worry if you were against including in the document a
> glossary of collected terms (I say this because I generally find myself in
> agreement with much of the content of many of your msgs, and would not like
> this to be different).
>
> But I don't think it is worth the time and effort compared to getting the
> "first usage" instances correct. And it might better go in a "Language Tag
> Tutorial".
>
>
> probably be useful, as well  (but much more work for you to compile than the
> usual "Terms and Definitions" component users of ISO standards find so handy
> for ref.).
>

No. I'm saying that if someone wants to write a tutorial, and collect terms,
that's fine. Go ahead.

mg

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:37:03 -0700

I have several comments on this thread, submitted as a technical 
contributor unless otherwise noted:

1. I objected to making extensive editorial changes to the introduction 
and elsewhere because this work, RFC 4646bis, follows hard on the heels 
of a quite extensive revision of the document. I have been editing this 
document for 4 1/2 years now. I don't love every word of it. Like many 
documents written by a committee, it is not truly beautiful. However, 
having recently achieved consensus on this document (since it was 
published as an RFC)---a consensus that must have included on some level 
the commenters, since their names appear in the acknowledgments--I am 
loathe to go back and make an extensive series of revisions. This effort 
was chartered as a fairly minor one focused on extlangs. As an editor, I 
do occasionally restructure or rewrite text as a result of the changes 
we are currently working on. However, I don't feel we should proceed, 
paragraph by paragraph, to alter the document at length.

2. Terms and definitions sections are all very well. This document even 
has such a section, although it is not called that. Section 2.2 contains 
a terminology section, where we define the critical terms for 
understanding the document.

3. I note that the original comment was about the term 'extlang'. 
However, 'extlang' is NOT a term (although we use it as one on this 
list). It has two uses in the document:

   i. It is the name of a production in the ABNF grammar.
   ii. It is a subtag 'type' string. It is references very carefully 
this way in all cases.

The proper term is "extended language subtag" and it is defined in 
Section 2.2.2. Note that this is the same part of the document where the 
other terminology is defined.

4. I suspect that a Terms and Definitions appendix will serve to make 
the document longer, but will little avail readers. I invite someone to 
suggest the terminology list with definitions. However, me tendency is 
to think that it will be somewhat redundant with the body of the document.

Regards,

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:11:22 -0700

hi -

As a co-chair...

> From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; "'LTRU Working Group'" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:17 AM
> Subject: RE: Introduction (was: Re: [Ltru] draft-ietf-ltru-rfc4646bis-08)
...
> refer to the Terms and Definitions section.

This is a direct consequence of their custom of putting most definitions in
this section.  Another approach, more typical of IETF documents, is for terms
and conventions to be defined on first use.  Some documents will collect
this information into a section on conventions or definitions, but there is
no requirement to do it in any particular manner.

> I am in agreement with Doug,

For this proposal to get any traction, you should propose specific text,
or at least provide specific examples of terms which have caused problems
for readers of the document.

Randy

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:38:42 +0100

I agree, somewhat.  However, I find it useful to read the Terms first then
read the document whilst trying to remember the terms that are defined -
looking them up as I come across them to remind myself as to their meaning;
which by that time makes sense.  It means a bit of going backwards and
forwards sometimes but essentially it works in that there can be no
misunderstanding as to the authors intended meaning.  As Terminology is
really coming to the fore within industry this is now becoming quite
important. 
 
Reading and understanding ISO standards is an art in itself :-)
 
Best
 
Debbie
PS When I first started out in Standardization it took me ages to fathom out
the meaning of Data Categories - I hadn't read the Ts and Ds ;-)  I thought
it was something really obscure.

  _____  

From: Mark Davis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 30 August 2007 17:47
To: Marion Gunn
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: Introduction (was: Re: [Ltru] draft-ietf-ltru-rfc4646bis-08)

Alphabetical order is cohesive enough for most professional users. Added to
that, even for newbies, it is predictable, logical, consistent with ISO
documents in general, with which one would expect most users of this list to
be familiar. 

Is that the case with regard to this particular document, Mark? Or - rather
than asking that question -  let us assume that it is, then have its editors
simply cut and past each "first use mention" into a "Terms and Definitions"
section, so that it can be used by those used to using dictionaries and ISO
documents with the same ease as it can be ignored by those who are not. 

mg

Mark

On 8/30/07, Marion Gunn < [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote: 

- - 

-- 
Mark

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:26:30 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

> 1. ... This effort was chartered as a fairly minor one focused on 
> extlangs. As an editor, I do occasionally restructure or rewrite text 
> as a result of the changes we are currently working on. However, I 
> don't feel we should proceed, paragraph by paragraph, to alter the 
> document at length.

i agree.  I also regret the extent to which LTRU 2.0 has expanded in 
scope.  I think it will actually be a bit ironic if we come out of LTRU 
2.0 with a pair of documents to replace 4646 and 4645, and the one thing 
we *didn't* do is add extlangs.  :-)

> Section 2.2.2. Note that this is the same part of the document where 
> the other terminology is defined.

For my part, I understand that "extlang" is not the official name for 
this type of subtag, and didn't mean to propose defining it formally if 
you were talking to me.  We use it all the time because it's easier to 
type 7 letters than 24.

> the document longer, but will little avail readers.

One thing the document does not need is to be longer.  If we do add such 
a section, we should attempt to strip out the now-redundant inline 
definitions that exist throughout the document.

> However, me tendency is to think...

Now hold on, is that en-IE or en-scotland?  Oh wait, that reminds me...