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

"Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com> Tue, 09 August 2011 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <addison@lab126.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 3B8CA11E808E for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.115
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.483, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XlHrKeItJPYF for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fw-4101.amazon.com (smtp-fw-4101.amazon.com [72.21.198.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9007711E80A3 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.67,345,1309737600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="499378655"
Received: from smtp-in-0102.sea3.amazon.com ([10.224.19.46]) by smtp-border-fw-out-4101.iad4.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Aug 2011 21:25:24 +0000
Received: from ex-hub-31010.ant.amazon.com (ex-hub-31010.sea31.amazon.com [10.185.169.7]) by smtp-in-0102.sea3.amazon.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p79LPKXF013481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:25:20 GMT
Received: from EX-SEA31-D.ant.amazon.com ([169.254.1.184]) by ex-hub-31010.ant.amazon.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:25:19 -0700
From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
To: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>, "ltru@ietf.org" <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:25:18 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
Thread-Index: AcxW1GNe6uo+u0OuRsyR1FlP+bD03QABkdKQ
Message-ID: <131F80DEA635F044946897AFDA9AC3476A95070A7D@EX-SEA31-D.ant.amazon.com>
References: <SNT142-W50709869F83A2245D22378B3200@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <SNT142-W50709869F83A2245D22378B3200@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_131F80DEA635F044946897AFDA9AC3476A95070A7DEXSEA31Dantam_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:25:00 -0000

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

Addison

From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of CE Whitehead
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:39 PM
To: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Hi.
From: Mark Davis â <mark at macchiato.com<mailto:mark@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
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
cewcathar@hotmail.com<mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com>