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

CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com> Wed, 10 August 2011 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <cewcathar@hotmail.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 7AF7421F8797 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 Q0LtQ-xaq8PV for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snt0-omc1-s29.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc1-s29.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BDA21F8788 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT142-W9 ([65.55.90.9]) by snt0-omc1-s29.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:39:45 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT142-W9C7B81329945B092B29ADB3230@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_d81405c8-15bb-4919-b885-b5eb7fded6b9_"
X-Originating-IP: [64.134.190.52]
From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
To: <addison@lab126.com>, <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:39:45 -0400
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <SNT142-W530F0DB507756D38D30F2BB3230@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT142-W50709869F83A2245D22378B3200@phx.gbl>, <131F80DEA635F044946897AFDA9AC3476A95070A7D@EX-SEA31-D.ant.amazon.com>, <SNT142-W530F0DB507756D38D30F2BB3230@phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2011 17:39:45.0998 (UTC) FILETIME=[7EB4CEE0:01CC5784]
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: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:39:14 -0000

Forgot to cut the top of this message (the automatic signature that's only for personal emails that I forgot to turn off) last time; my apologies.

Here is the message again (sorry for the double post).
Sincerely,
--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar@hotmail.com 
From: addison@lab126.com
To: cewcathar@hotmail.com; ltru@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:25:18 -0700
Subject: RE: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext




> “SHOULD” is a magic word. It’s not appropriate in these cases, IMO. > Addison
Thanks  for your feedback Addison; SHOULD is there in the draft -- in the section just above  and that's why I pounced on it (I know it's a magic word); so if it's not the right word just go for the present tense; use "is;" "would" sounds way to "iffy" here  (it would be nice if . . . it ever could happen . . . that the 2007 version could be returned).
(That's just my editorial opinion of course, but I have done a little editing; also have taken courses in line editing and techincal editing; thanks).
Sincerely,
--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar@hotmail.com  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>
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. Whiteheadcewcathar@hotmail.com