Re: [Ltru] Last Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ltru-matching)

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> To: <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:40 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Last Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ltru-matching) 
...
> I'm not totally happy with the first sentence, in particular the second
> part:
> 
>    This document describes a syntax, called a "language-range", for
>    specifying items in a user's language preferences, called a "language
>    priority list".
> 
> It's not really clear whether "language priority list" refers to "items"
> or "preferences"; in both cases, there is a singular/plural conflict.
> a) be more explicit, e.g.:
> 
>    This document describes a syntax, called a "language-range", for
>    specifying items in the list of a user's language preferences,
>    called a "language priority list".
> 
> b) be less explicit, e.g.:
> 
>    This document describes a syntax, called a "language-range", for
>    specifying items in a user's list of language preferences.
> 
> I have to say that I prefer b), because it is simpler, and while
> the spec does (define and use) the term "language preference list",
> it does not actually define a protocol element and syntax with that name,
> and therefore mentioning this term in the abstract is of minor importance
> (or actually gives the wrong impression).
...

Though I see nothing wrong with the sentence as is, I think the
concerns might be addressed by something like:

   This document describes a syntax, called a "language-range".
   This syntax can function in protocol-specific constructs as part
   of a language priority list, indicating language preferences.

But I don't feel strongly about this.

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru