[Ltru] Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?

CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com> Sun, 26 July 2009 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA6E3A6B1E for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.404
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.706, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MMhIjDKspvsG for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s10.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s10.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FEC33A63C9 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU109-W17 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s10.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:56:32 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU109-W17417DF91DA735FF15A869B3170@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_11a89607-49dc-4a43-a70a-2cbb1c23a35d_"
X-Originating-IP: [168.13.191.67]
From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
To: <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:56:32 -0400
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2009 18:56:32.0992 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAF08E00:01CA0E22]
Subject: [Ltru] Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:56:32 -0000

Hi.

From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com> 
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org> 
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:34:41 -0700 
> The one bit of language tagging infrastructure that we have not revised since this 
> whole body of work has started is RFC 3282, which defines Content-Language and 
> Accept-Language. 
> . . . 
 
I'll look at it.

 

So far what I have is a minor English error:

 

1. Introductioin  par 3, 1rst sentence:

 

{COMMENT:  I think I prefer "either" before "or" in these conjoined clauses, the second of which I don't particularly like anyway, because of the phrase "might be"}

 

""In some contexts, it is possible to have information available in more than one language, or it might be possible . . . "

 

=> 

"In some contexts, either it is possible to have information available in more than one language, or it might be possible . . ." 

 

* * *

 

6.  Acknowledgements, par 5, 1rst sentence:

 

{COMMENT:  Michael Everson is the "language subtag reviewer" and not the "language tag reviewer" I thought}

 

"Special thanks must go to Michael Everson, who has  served as language tag reviewer . . ."

 

=> "Special thanks must go to Michael Everson, who has  served as language subtag reviewer . . ."

* * *

Will we be updating the examples in Section 2?  These are all 'grandfathered.'

 


 
Best wishes,
 
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com