Re: [calsify] draft-daboo-icalendar-rscale-04 editorial nits

[Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ken,
Thanks for your review. I will apply fixes to the WG -00 draft which I am 
working on now.

--On October 3, 2014 at 9:32:04 AM -0400 Ken Murchison 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Section 3, 2nd last sent: This might be more of a regional thing, but
> should "later" be "latter" ?

Fixed.

> Section 3, last sent: Since iCalendar uses ISO weeks, should we say "The
> number of whole [ISO.8601.2004] weeks in a year is either 52 or 53" ?

Well the ISO things refers to how weeks are numbered not actual weeks in a 
year - there are always 52 whole weeks in a year (if you start counting 
from 1st January). I would be willingly to clarify the text with this 
change:

    The number of whole weeks in a year is 52 (though the [ISO.8601.2004]
    week numbering scheme used by iCalendar [RFC5545] can have a numeric
    count up to 53).

> Section 3: para 3: The two items listed seem more like guidelines,
> principles, or rules rather than a procedure.  Should we change "the
> following procedure is used" to "the following principles are followed"
> or "the following rules are used" or some other permutation?

I will use "principles".

> Section, 1st sent: "clients and server" -> "clients and servers"

Fixed.

> Section 11.1, UNICODE.CLDR: Should we use the following URI rather than
> picking a particular release?
> http://www.unicode.org/repos/cldr/tags/latest/common/bcp47/calendar.xml

I have updated that to the latest release. However, I am not sure about 
doing what you suggest given that this is a normative reference. I would 
have thought a "stable" reference is preferred rather than a "moving 
target". It would be good to get some feedback from the 
chairs/ADs/RFC-Editor (or anyone else) on that.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo