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

["Gordon P. Hemsley" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <[e-mail]> 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
[e-mail]
http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/