You're not supposed to have a reference in the abstract, no? I got beat up on that for weeks.
Why not say:
"This memo defines the initial contents of the Language Subtag Registry for use in forming tags for the identification of languages."
The introduction can say where draft-registry is at and all that.
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: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: 2005年7月10日 10:50
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: editorial nits in initial registry draft -01
>
> Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
>
> > Need to ensure that the "RFC 3066bis" in the Abstract gets replaced
> > with the actual RFC number during the RFC editing process.
>
> Just let me know how to do that. I tried making this a reference to
> [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry], but one tool or another didn't like that in
> the Abstract.
>
> > "This memo does not define the permanent contents of the registry."
> > isn't quite what we need to say. If there's no objection, I suggest
> > something like "Since the contents of this memo only serve as a
> > starting point for the registry, it is inappropriate to use this memo
> > in lieue of the registry."
>
> (s/lieue/lieu/)
>
> I'm not sure I see the practical difference, but I made the change. Do
> I need to change the last sentence of the third paragraph of the
> Introduction as well?
>
> > The last sentence of section 1 ("The process for determining the
> > contents of this registry is defined in Section 3.7 of
> > [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].") isn't needed, since that material
> > immediately follows.
>
> Right, that was a holdover from the days before the current Section 2
> was created.
>
> > (I bet the RFC editor gets rid of the inter-section page breaks. :-)
>
> I had to delete <?rfc compact="yes" ?> so the text in the nested lists
> in Section 2 wouldn't come out all jammed together. This had the side
> effect of introducing the page breaks between sections. If anyone can
> show me a better way to do this, I'd appreciate it.
>
> > "the the" -> "the"
>
> Done.
>
> > "RFC 3066" needs a reference. (informative)
>
> Done, everywhere RFC 3066 is mentioned. The one mention of RFC 1766 was
> also turned into a reference. There are now a LOT more references than
> before.
>
> I also removed the first hyphen in references like [ISO-639-1], changing
> it to [ISO639-1], because that seems to be the convention. I left
> [UN-M.49] alone, since it was just too ugly otherwise.
>
> > "This section defines the process used to create the initial registry
> > entries." ->
> > "This section describes the process that was used to create the
> > initial registry entries."
>
> Done.
>
> > "The initial set of records is based on the following standards:" ->
> > "The initial set of records was based on the following standards:"
>
> Done, along with similar present/past tense corrections.
>
> > "7. Tags in the RFC 3066 registry that are not deprecated, consist
> > entirely of subtags already in this document, and have the
> > correct" ->
> > "7. Tags in the RFC 3066 registry that were not deprecated, consisted
> > entirely of subtags already in that document, and have the
> > correct"
>
> No, it's *this* document, the initial registry. The RFC 3066 registry
> doesn't have subtags, only whole tags.
>
> > Do we really need this paragraph in this document?
> > Any additional registrations completed after the adoption of
> > [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] using the rules in RFC 3066 will be
> > incorporated into the Language Subtag Registry using the rules
> > defined above, or will result in the submission of appropriate
> > records by the Language Subtag Reviewer according to the rules in
> > [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].
>
> Addison proposed that text on July 5 to replace "New registrations
> completed under RFC 3066 were entered into the ILSR using the rules
> defined above." Personally I agree that no text related to ongoing
> maintenance of the registry belongs in draft-initial. I've commented
> out the above text, not deleted it, in case a battle ensues about
> retaining it.
>
> > This paragraph also doesn't belong in this document.
> > All existing RFC 3066 language tag registrations will be maintained
> > in perpetuity.
> > It's about registry maintenance, rather than initialization.
>
> I agree, and have commented this out as well. Actually, I think all of
> item 11 from "Interested parties" to the end should be deleted, as it
> also pertains to registry maintenance, but I'll wait to hear a humming
> sound before I do anything about it.
>
> I have not added any references or explanations regarding the use of
> Unicode escape sequences. Section 1 briefly mentions record-jar, but
> then defers all other format-related details to [draft-registry].
>
> 200 has been expurgated from Section 4.
>
> Draft-initial-02 is now available:
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.html
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.xml
>
> --
> Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.