Re: Introduction (was: Re: [Ltru] draft-ietf-ltru-rfc4646bis-08)

On 8/30/07, Marion Gunn <mgunn@egt.ie> wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Aug 2007, at 16:26, scríobh Mark Davis:
>
> I find the typical Terms and Definitions sections at the start of many ISO
> documents actually counter-productive. The items are presented before you
> have any background for what the definitions really mean, and are in no
> cohesive order.
>
>
> Alphabetical order is cohesive enough for most professional users. Added
> to that, even for newbies, it is predictable, logical, consistent with ISO
> documents in general, with which one would expect most users of this list to
> be familiar.
>

I disagree. I've hit many instances where the definition of an ISO term
makes no sense until you've read enough of the way through the document to
understand it. Alphabetical is fine for reference *after* you've read the
document, but it is a nice to have, and not a requirement.

We are not writing an ISO document, and there is no requirement to follow
its format.

As you read the document, each technical term should be defined in the
> paragraph where it is first used. If that is not the case, then please make
> specific suggestions for additions to the text.
>
>
> Is that the case with regard to this particular document, Mark? Or -
> rather than asking that question -  let us assume that it is, then have its
> editors simply cut and past each "first use mention" into a "Terms and
> Definitions" section, so that it can be used by those used to using
> dictionaries and ISO documents with the same ease as it can be ignored by
> those who are not.
>

No. I'm saying that if you personally, or anyone else on this list, finds a
case where a term is not clear on first usage, then you should point it out
and suggest additional text at that point.

I'm not, in theory, against having a glossary of collected terms at the end
> of the document for reference.
>
>
> Good. It would be a worry if you were against including in the document a
> glossary of collected terms (I say this because I generally find myself in
> agreement with much of the content of many of your msgs, and would not like
> this to be different).
>
> But I don't think it is worth the time and effort compared to getting the
> "first usage" instances correct. And it might better go in a "Language Tag
> Tutorial".
>
>
> If you are proposing to compose a "Language Tag Tutorial", that would
> probably be useful, as well  (but much more work for you to compile than the
> usual "Terms and Definitions" component users of ISO standards find so handy
> for ref.).
>

No. I'm saying that if someone wants to write a tutorial, and collect terms,
that's fine. Go ahead.

mg
>
>
>
> Mark
>
> On 8/30/07, Marion Gunn <mgunn@egt.ie> wrote:
> >
> > I am in total agreement with DG on this matter (as set out below in
> > her msg of today - as cited below - which msg of hers echoes the
> > substance of one of mine of yesterday, I believe).
> > mg
> >
> > On 30 Aug 2007, at 15:17, scríobh Debbie Garside:
> >
> > > ... I think to devise a Terms
> > > and Definitions section would be very useful to newbies.  It would
> > > also
> > > cement the terminology for ease of use in other documents wishing to
> > > reference the RFC.
>
>
> - -
> Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
> 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
> Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
> * mgunn@egt.ie * eamonn@egt.ie *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>

-- 
Mark