Subject: [Ltru] Schizophrenia over language ranges

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:20:22 -0500

I'm reviewing -matching-10-var1, and I'm overwhelmed by the schizophrenia
over whether language ranges represent sets of language tags or sets of
content tagged by those tags.  Paragraph 2 of section 2 says sets of tags,
2.1 says sets of content, 2.2 implies sets of tags without saying so.
Section 3 paragraph 1 speaks of matching ranges to tags, paragraph 2
speaks of information items, which are (not very clearly) equated with
content by section 2 paragraph 1.

Help!

IMHO the Right Thing is to clarify that language ranges match sets of
language tags (not content), and that matching algorithms return content
(not information items, not language tags).

-- 
A: "Spiro conjectures Ex-Lax."                  John Cowan
Q: "What does Pat Nixon frost her cakes with?"  [email-masked]
  --"Jeopardy" for generative semanticists      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:28:49 -0800

Should all say sets of tags unless there is a specific need to talk about
information items. Will fix.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ltru] Schizophrenia over language ranges
>

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:16:36 -0800

This is requiring a bit of writing. In particular, section 3 requires a good
bit more fastidiousness, especially the section on lookup. Edits being many,
I've posted the results as -var2:

   http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-10-var2.txt
   http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-10-var2.html

Addison

Addison Phillips

> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:29 AM
> To: 'John Cowan'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Schizophrenia over language ranges
>

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:21:03 -0800

Note: the rfcdiff between var1 and var2 is posted here:

  http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/var1-var2-diff.html

Addison

Addison Phillips

> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:17 PM
> To: 'Addison Phillips'; 'John Cowan'; [email-masked]

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:16:07 -0500

>    http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-10-var2.html

Excellent.

More nits:  2.1 claims that language tags may not be mutually intelligible;
of course it's the languages identified by the tags that may not be.

2.3:  for "such as in the" read "such as those in the"

The clause "in part ..." at the end of 3.2.2 produces nothing but confusion
and should be removed; it speaks as if '*' was allowable in tags, which
is not the case.

I continue to think that matching schemes should *match* ranges against tags
and *return* content or information items.  That implies undoing the
change in the first sentence of 3.2 and 3.3.

In Fig. 3, remove the reference to the empty tag, since 3066 doesn't have them.
The mention a few grafs down of XML empty xml:lang attributes is sufficient.

-- 
John Cowan  <[email-masked]>  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.
                --Albert Einstein

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:39:38 -0800

> of course it's the languages identified by the tags that may not be.

Changed from:

...the set of language tags that match a specific language-range may not be
mutually intelligible.
To:

...the set of language tags that match a specific language range may not
represent mutually intelligible languages.

(Note a death of a hyphen too)
> 2.3:  for "such as in the" read "such as those in the"

Good, but it needs more smithing. I suggest:

--
<t>Where a language priority list provides "quality weights" for the
language ranges, such as the use of Q weights in the syntax of the
"Accept-Language" header (defined in <xref target="RFC2616" />, Section
14.4, and <xref target="RFC3282" />), language ranges without a weight are
given values equal to the value of the previous language range (processing
from first to last). If the first language range has no weight, it is given
a value of 1.0. Then language ranges with zero weights are removed. For
example, "fr, en;q=0.5, de, it" becomes "fr;q=1.0, en;q=0.5, de;q=0.5,
it;q=0.5". The language priority list is then sorted from highest priority
to lowest, with language ranges that share the same weights remain in the
same order as in the original language priority list. </t>
--
> and should be removed; it speaks as if '*' was allowable in tags, which

DONE.
> change in the first sentence of 3.2 and 3.3.

Argh. That would probably work better. I think the general rubric is "Scheme
X is used to select the set of language tags that matches a given language
priority list and return the associated content."
> The mention a few grafs down of XML empty xml:lang attributes is

"Default content" is cleaner and makes more sense.
~Addison

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:45:08 -0800

> change in the first sentence of 3.2 and 3.3.
Actually, I think matching and lookup are best thought of as processing 
against available language tags, then returning content (or more 
generally, data) associated with those tags. That makes the exposition 
cleaner.

Mark

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:51:28 -0800

Implementing edits along those lines. Look for var3 before long, with a goal of Martin telling us to publish draft-10 tomorrow.

Addison

Addison Phillips

> From: Mark Davis [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 2006年2月22日 14:45
> To: John Cowan
> Cc: Addison Phillips; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Schizophrenia over language ranges
> 
> >