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

["Phillips, Addison" <[e-mail]>]

“SHOULD” is a magic word. It’s not appropriate in these cases, IMO.

Addison

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of CE Whitehead
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:39 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Hi.
From: Mark Davis â <mark at macchiato.com<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:07:12 -0700
> Ok, we've rolled up changes based on feedback and posted. (I wasn't able to post earlier; most of these were in the working
> document linked to while posting was disallowed.)
>  . . .
 It looks fine to me; one more minor proofreading nit if you're still looking for those:

2.5 Last P

"A language tag with the t extension MAY be used to request a specific
   transform of content.  In such a case, the recipient SHOULD return
   content that corresponds as closely as feasible to the requested
   transform, including the specification of the mechanism.  For
   example, if the request is ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2007, and the
   recipient has content corresponding to both ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2007
   and ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2009, then the 2007 version would be
   preferred.  As is the case for language matching as discussed in
   [BCP47], different implementations MAY have different measures of
   "closeness"."

{ COMMENT:  I would prefer "should be returned" or "is normally returned" over "would be preferred;" also I would not use "would;" I would use "should" or else use all present tense forms here . . . }

=>
"A language tag with the t extension MAY be used to request a specific
   transform of content.  In such a case, the recipient SHOULD return
   content that corresponds as closely as feasible to the requested
   transform, including the specification of the mechanism.  For
   example, if the request is ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2007, and the
   recipient has content corresponding to both ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2007
   and ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2009, then the 2007 version is normally returned.  As is the case for language matching as discussed in
   [BCP47], different implementations MAY have different measures of
   "closeness"."

{ COMMENT2: alternately you could say here,
=>
"For example, if the request is ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2007, and the recipient has content corresponding to both
. . . ,
then the 2007 version SHOULD normally be returned." }

Best,

--C. E. Whitehead
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>