Re: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib (Language Tag MIB)toProposed Standard

[Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

The first message in this thread explicitly
requested "Please send substantive comments to the
[e-mail] mailing lists by 2007-03-08."  Please
abide by that request, rather than adding to the
noise on [e-mail]

However, gaining a cursory familiarity with RFC 2579's
material describing how TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS work
would be advisable.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
>From: CE Whitehead <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Feb 13, 2007 2:53 AM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib (Language Tag	MIB)toProposed Standard
>
>
>Hi, Frank, all; my comments are below!
>(just sent to the other list, alvestrand, this is a resend, sorry!)
>>
>>CE Whitehead wrote:
>>
>> > My onle question related to section 3, paragraph 3; it may be a dumb
>> > question, but, what does "This" refer to in line 2?  Thanks.
>> > --cew
>> >             In theory, BCP 47 language tags are of unlimited length.
>> >             This language tag is of limited length.
>>
>>This "textual convention" for language tags as specified in the draft.
>>I think, the "last call" got me to read RFC 2579.  But I've no idea
>>how the announcemement ended up to be sent also to "this" list... :-)
>>Frank
>
>You mean "this textual convention"  in the second paragraph below (exerpted 
>from the beginning of the document?) :
>
>"This document is part of work in progress to obsolete RFC 2932
>   [RFC2932].  RFC 2932 defined a LanguageTag textual convention, but
>   did so at an inappropriately scope; namely in a MIB module specific
>   to IPv4 multicast routing.
>
>  " This draft aims to correct the structure of the MIB by placing this
>   textual convention in a dedicated module that can be included without
>   other dependencies."
>
>Then I am still concerned at the language/syle in the McWalter document 
>because:
>
>1.  "this textual convention" does not seem to be quite the same thing as 
>"this language tag"
>2.  Even if I'm wrong and these two phrases are quite the same, it's been a 
>while since "this textual convention was referred to"-- and thus it's 
>unclear here that it's now referring to the textual convention specified in 
>this draft and not to something else.
>
>(when I taught I would not let my students refer to anything outside of the 
>text unless it was very obvious;
>nor would I let them refer to something more than one paragraph back without 
>specifying it exactly again
>
>I thus wonder how you all figured out what "this language tag" was referring 
>to.
>
>But like I said the material in this particular draft is not my area of 
>expertise;
>
>anyway my comment is about style not about content!  I defer to you all on 
>the content)
>
>* * *
>I think the announcement was sent to this list too because it deals with the 
>internet protocols for handling the language tags???  Things that use the 
>protocols include implementations that use language tags??  (?? such as 
>browsers which select content according to user preferences and which also 
>display conent; also ?? search engines?? )
>
>So we are concerned because we approve the subtags that make up the 
>well-formed language tags??
>
>But I'm unsure because this is all pretty new to me.  Anyone else can maybe 
>explain better why this was sent to us all here.
>
>
>--C. E. Whitehead
>[e-mail]
>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get in the mood for Valentine's Day. View photos, recipes and more on your 
>Live.com page. 
>http://www.live.com/?addTemplate=ValentinesDay&ocid=T001MSN30A0701
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>[e-mail]
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages