Subject: RE: [Ltru] -01 nits

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:32:34 -0700

Hm...

I'm getting dupes of various messages on this list. This just arrived *after* I sent a response to it, a remarkable occurrence normally.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
> Sent: 2005?4?25? 20:13
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ltru] -01 nits
> 
> Hi, some observations in draft -01 in no particular order:
> 
> * [7] (Unicode 4) is not used.
>   Please delete this normative reference, [6] is good enough.
> 
> * In chapter 2.1 "UTF-16LE" is not explained.
>   Please add [RfC 2781] as informative reference.
> 
> * [13] (IETF-ICANN MoU about IANA)
>   Please delete this "normative" reference to an MoU-FYI.
>   Maybe use [RfC 2028] (BCP 11) as a reference to explain "IANA",
>   you already have it as [10] elsewhere.
> 
> * [16] (RfC 3978) is not used.
>   Please delete this normative reference, the boilerplates
>   work without it.
> 
> * In chapter 3.1 replace the URL of XML 1.0 3rd ed. by the
>   generic URL of the latest XML 1.0 edition.
> 
> * Several "2-character code", "3-character code", "4-character subtags":
>   Using "alpha-2 code" etc. would be clearer and shorter where the ABNF
>   dictates 2ALPHA etc.
> 
> * There's still a *("-" extlang) in the ABNF, it should be at most one
>   ["-" extlang].
> 
> * In chapter 2.1.1:  "In practice, this limits most tags to a sequence
>   of four subtags, and thus a length of 35 (excluding any extensions":
>   This limit is 8+(1+4)+(1+3)+(1+8)= 26 without extlang and 4 subtags.
>   With extlang it's only 25 = 3+(1+3)+(1+4)+(2+3)+(1+8).
> 
> * In chapter 2.1.1:  "Any such limitation MUST be clearly documented,
>   and such documentation SHOULD include the disposition of any longer
>   tags  (for example, whether an error value is generated or the
>   language tag is truncated).  If truncation is permitted it SHOULD
>   NOT permit a subtag to be divided."
> 
>   Proposed new text:  "Any limitation SHOULD be clearly documented.
>   Tags SHOULD NOT be truncated, but removing complete subtags right
>   to left MAY be permitted."
> 
> * In chapter 2.2.1:  7. The single character subtag 'i' is used by
>   some grandfathered tags (see Section 2.2.8) such as "i-klingon"
>   and "i-bnn".
>   Please replace the "almost" deprecated i-klingon by i-default.
> 
> * In chapter 2.2.2:  Please replace all "subtags" by "subtag".
>   Please remove "3. There MAY be any additional number of
>   extended language subtags."  At most one extlang, otherwise
>   it doesn't fly with RfC 2231 / 2047.
> 
> * In chapter 2.2.7:  "Users who wished to utilize SIL Ethnologue".
>   Please delete this example, it muddies the water for ISO 639-3.
> 
> * The ABNF layout in 3.1 is ugly, the main ABNF is better, please
>   use the same xml2rfc trick (artwork ?) as in 2.1:
> 
>   registry   = record *( "%%" CRLF record )
>   record     = 1*( field-name *SP ":" *SP field-body CRLF )
>   field-name = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" )
>   field-body = *( ASC-char / LWSP )
>   ASC-char   = %x21-25 / %x27-7E / UNI-char    ; AMPERSAND is %x26
>   UNI-char   = "&#x" 2*6HEXDIG ";"
> 
>   This fixes the reported "no %% in the first / last line" problem.
>   The minimal length of a field-name should be one, not zero.
>   It also replaces the undefined NUM by DIGIT, and %x2D by "-".
> 
>   In theory a field-name starting or ending with a "-" would be a
>   bad idea, and a DIGIT in a field-name is also strange, but OTOH
>   we don't want to reinvent "ldh-string" for a known set of names.
> 
> * Please delete the File-Date example or get rid of the first "%%":
>   %%
>   File-Date: 2004-06-28
>   %%
> 
> * Another proposal for the registry ABNF:
> 
>   registry    = record *( "%%" CRLF record )
>   record      = 1*( field CRLF )
>   field       = type / timestamp / reference / explanation
>   type        = ( subtagttype / tagtype ) 1*SP tagtext
>   subtagtype  = "Language:" / "Extlang:" / "Script:"
>               / "Region:" / "Variant:"
>   tagtype     = "Grandfathered:" / "Redundant:"
>   timestamp   = ( "File-Date:" / "Added:" / "Deprecated:" ) 1*SP date
>   reference   = ( "Canonical:" / "Suppress-Script:"
>                 / "Recommended-Prefix:" ) 1*SP tagtext
>   explanation = ( "Description:" / "Comment:" ) 1*SP text
>   date        = 4DIGIT "-" 2DIGIT "-" 2DIGIT    ; see RfC 3339
>   tagtext     = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" )       ; note no WSP
>   text        = *( ASC-char / LWSP )            ; note folding WSP
>   ASC-char    = %x21-25 / %x27-7E / UNI-char    ; AMPERSAND is %x26
>   UNI-char    = "&#x" 2*6HEXDIG ";"
> 
>   This is quite different from the old ABNF, no more SP before the
>   COLON, at least one SP after the COLON, no "folding" for a date or
>   tagtext, "folding" only for a (long) Description: or a Comment:,
>   no UNI-char or special char in tagtext, a date syntax that needs
>   no further explanation (one example will do).
> 
>   Based on this ABNF chapter 3.1 could be much shorter and clearer.
>   It's not more necessary to dig through 3.1 to find all field names.
> 
> IMHO you could submit snapshots of complete drafts more often,
> and you also don't need Randy or Martin for a future -02, etc.
> 
>                               Bye, Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru