Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

"Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley@gmail.com> Fri, 26 August 2011 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <gphemsley@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BFAD21F8B5D for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rMtOyRcDikFA for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC94E21F8A7D for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so2812464fxe.31 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pKekaoU76SYGImveYThMHp8g0ZEcXwHSQBHcghWENUU=; b=SazJ2HAmlKzxDOYKvHKMo6x/isKg6EGwFAT66IXYvpBiTZmFF5GIwkKeiZBJ6Q/bTB u2E+LQPA0/SM8YAa/Z4/TfTqIRy9YZPN7Si5Olu0fI5ZzJrjS6o+boMJtJomGdVsC8E5 zRSNZM6S2g/mPPZQwXxzFfStHoppS/yk5ZdcY=
Received: by 10.223.22.131 with SMTP id n3mr1725608fab.4.1314366108318; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.117.80 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2xs_F8QHqBBWb_R+JLoKYptGPOfG1PZa85d-OFYVbfs5iDNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110823101708.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.35d98b2f35.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <CAJ2xs_F8QHqBBWb_R+JLoKYptGPOfG1PZa85d-OFYVbfs5iDNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:41:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH4e3M7UPVxFexjrSVYyXYgz3RSVyWYUtBV7xygk9h1sQr9yZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:57:46 -0700
Cc: ltru@ietf.org, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:41:51 -0000

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> wrote:
> Updated working drafts:
>
> draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.html
> draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.txt
> draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.xml

Editorial nits:

The second to last paragraph in section 2.1 contains a sentence that reads:
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted or
change in meaning in a substantial way."

I presume that the 'never' is supposed to scope over 'change', but it
doesn't, as currently written.

I suggest rephrasing that sentence to something like these:
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted or
changed in meaning in a substantial way."
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted nor
changed in meaning in a substantial way."
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted and do
not change in meaning in a substantial way."
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted or
substantially changed in meaning."
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted nor
substantially changed in meaning."

My preference would probably be one of the last two.

Also, and maybe I missed it, but I thought it was agreed to change the
registration description (section 2.4) to "Specifying Transformed
Content" or one of many other suggested changes?

I would also recommend separating "but not limited to" from the other
text using commas on either side... but maybe that's just a personal
preference of mine.

Also, could you clarify to me the purpose of the last paragraph of
section 2.5? If a request is made for 'ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2007' and
the recipient has content corresponding to that exact request, why
would it ever even consider serving 'ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2009'?
Wouldn't it make more sense to use an example where the recipient of
the request does not have an exact match and thus must actually choose
what it considers to be the closest equivalent?

Fourth paragraph of section 2.9:
"The XML structure lists the keys, such as <key extension="t"
name="m0" alias="collation" description="Transliteration extension
mechanism">,with subelements for the types, such as <type
name="ungegn" description="United Nations Group of Experts on
Geographical Names"/>."

There is a space missing after the second comma.

And in section 4, the citation of "Section 3.7. Extensions and the
Extensions Registry of "Tags for Identifying Languages" in [BCP47]" is
inconsistent with the format used by similar citations throughout the
document. I would recommend changing 'in' to 'of' and eliminating the
period after '3.7', possibly couching the description in commas
instead.

Hope that helps.

Gordon

-- 
Gordon P. Hemsley
me@gphemsley.org
http://gphemsley.org/http://gphemsley.org/blog/