Subject: Some editorial matters for -syntax-

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 15:45:18 -0800 (PST)

Graham,
	After talking to you earlier today, I realized
that I had not done a proper "editorial" run through the
current -syntax-, in prep for its going to last call.  Below
are some editorial comments and proposed solutions; I've
cc'ed the working group in case there are comments on my
proposed solutions.

In Section 3.4, "exaple" should be example.

In 3.5.1 "In a corresponding LDAP search filter, they would directory
entry" seems be missing a verb.

In 3.5.1, the section describing differences between directory
selection and feature set selection probably needs to break
"Directory selection...on the presence of an attribute without
regard to its value" into a new bullet point.  

In 3.5.1, the description of substring matching as "not...relevant to
feature set selection" should probably be simplified to "Substring
matching (for tokens?) is excluded from these proposals"; there are
areas like hierarchical types where it might be relevant, but we don't
want to deal with them--so let's say that instead.

I think the discussion of the consequences "implied universal
quantification" so early is confusing in 3.5.1, so I would shorten
that paragraph to something which says:

"Within the semantic framework described by this document,
Boolean-valued features can be used where presence tests would be used
by some directory selection mechanisms."

A further reference to the sections on the scoping rules (including
7.2) could be put there, but it may not be necessary.

In 3.6, I would eliminate the phrase "suggesting an "ideal" option
that is equally or more preferred than any other"; the direction of
the 0 to 1 range has already been given, and this seems to muddy the
waters from that description.

For 4, my first question is whether it is independent enough to be
moved up in the document; there are a lot of forward reference in 3.x
to it, and it seems cleaner to move the whole lot up.  If that isn't
possible, the forward references should give the appropriate number
(there is one "next section", for example, in subheading 3.4 which
might refer to 3.4.1, 3.5 or 4).  If you do move 4, the "discussed
above" reference may need to be changed; in either case, it should
list the sections where it is discussed rather than indicate the
direction to scan.

In 4.2.3, I would add a brief reference to the URL tree of the
registration document, just to discourage folks from having
well-formed by unregistered feature sets.

In 4.2.4.2, I fear that we may actually have to say the + or - sign
must precede the expression "n/m" so we are not later asked why we
allow "10/-2".  I realize that the very name "rational number" should
exclude this, but it's probably best to make it very clear.

In 4.3, I think there is a missing closing parenthesis after the
q=0.8.

In bullet 7 in section 5.1, the satement that "Further, it can be used
as a statement of the resulting feature set for possible further
matching operations" needs either to be exanded in line or,
preferably, to have a pointer to the sections in which this is
discussed.

In 5.5, would is it clearer to say "comparable" rather than related in
the statement "(NE a b): 'a' is not equal and not related to 'b'." ?

The note in 5.7 should begin with "Remember" to match the other
notes.

Once again, many thanks for your work on this, 
			regards,
				Ted Hardie
				[email-masked]

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 02:23:58 +0000

Ted,

Thanks for your comments.

I'll respond below to a selection of those comments;  no comment means that
I accept your suggestion without reservation.

At 15:45 30/11/98 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
[...]
>want to deal with them--so let's say that instead.

This paragraph was intended as an explanation of the first bullet point.
I'm not sure that your proposal says anything that isn't already stated
there.  I would be happy to delete that paragraph.

>by some directory selection mechanisms."

Or:
 "Within the semantic framework described by this document,
  Boolean-valued feature tests can be used where presence tests would
  be used in a directory search filter."
?

>7.2) could be put there, but it may not be necessary.

I don't feel that is necessary.

>waters from that description.

The intent was to clarify the consequence of omitting ;q=x.  If it doesn't
do that then it should go.

>list the sections where it is discussed rather than indicate the

Section 3 was intended to introduce the underlying concepts and ideas,
before section 4 launches into the syntax specifics.  As I write, the
forward referencing I have noted is a result of using the notation
described later to illustrate some ideas.  I would prefer to play down the
forward referencing but leave the material in the order given if that does
not cause discomfort to other reasons.  Where forward referencing is used,
I'm happy to make it more explicit.

>well-formed by unregistered feature sets.

I propose replacing the clause beginning ", but such registration is not
necessary..." with a new sentence:  "Unregistered feature tags should be
allocated in the URI tree, as described by registration procedure [3]"

>exclude this, but it's probably best to make it very clear.

I thought that it was clear from both the syntax and section 4.2.4.2
(paragraph 2, 1st sentence) that the sign must precede both integers of a
rational value.

If you still feel this needs emphasizing then I can add something.

>In 4.3, I think there is a missing closing parenthesis after the

And before!  Well spotted.

>preferably, to have a pointer to the sections in which this is

OK.  I'll work on it.

>the statement "(NE a b): 'a' is not equal and not related to 'b'." ?

If you think that's better.  What I really want to say is:

    'a' is not equal to, less than or greater than 'b'

but that seemed like a bit of a mouthful.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])