[Ltru] Edith Whitehead's proposed editorial changes to 4646bis i-d (was Re: Editor's copy of draft-4646bis updated...)

[CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com>]

Hi, sorry for posting these at this date (this draft has lengthened substantially because I was involved some in the 2008 editing at ietf??)
 
(I had the idea from a previous message of Randy's that I could still post my editorial comments although they might not all be considered.)
 
On the "different to"/"different from"/"different than" issue (4.1, par 3) sorry for not noticing that "different to" is British English (obviously I don't speak that & saw this usage as an error); however "different from" is safest according to:
http://www.bartleby.com/68/37/1837.html
 
You do absolutely need to change 4.1 paragraph 6 item 1 second bullet though & that's one reason I decided to send these.
 
(I also disagree with Randy's editing in one case; I do think you need to change 5.1, paragraph 4, sentence 2; because grammatically "grouping" needs a subject antecedent here and does not have one.  However readers may figure out what is meant here because this is a common grammatical error.)
 
 
 
. . .
> As a technical contributor...

>> From: "Edith Whitehead" <quaiouestenglish at yahoo.com>
>> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:31 AM

> ! 4.1   par 3
>
> { ORIGINAL TEXT }
>
> "   Standards, protocols, and applications that reference this document
>    normatively but apply different rules to the ones given in this
>    section MUST specify how language tag selection varies from the
>    guidelines given here."
>
> { ! CORRECTION:  CHANGE:  "different rules to the . . . " > "rules different than those . . . "
>  you can say :  "rules different than,"  "rules different from,"  or "different rules than,"
> but where do you get "different rules to"?  It's not English.

> Nor is "different rules than".  If folks feel a need for a change,
> "rules different from" would be more acceptible.
"different from" is fine; "different to" turns out to be British English (my mistake here).  "Different from" is safe in all usages apparently.
...
>>  ?? Also, CHANGE: "apply" to "adhere to" or simply "follow"  (I like "adhere to" better;
>> "apply" might be a word you use with applications and rules but I do not use it with anything but formatting,
>> "formatting is applied . . ."

> Disagree.  I see no need for this change.
O.k.
...
>>  ? Also, CHANGE:  "the ones" to "those" (I think the the text is more cohesive with 'those'
>> because it refers back to 'the rules'--this is an idea that Halliday has about cohesion too) }

> Disagree.  I see no need for this change.
O.k.
> "Standards, protocols, and applications that reference this document
>   normatively but adhere to rules different than those given in this section . . . "

> This proposed usage of "than" is simply wrong, and I cannot support it.

...
>> ! 4.1 par 6 item 1 second bullet
>>
>> {ORIGINAL TEXT }
>> " Note that some subtag sequences might not represent the
>>           language a casual user might expect, especially if when
>>           relying on the subtag's description in the registry. "
>>
>> {! CORRECTION:  delete either "if" or "when" as "if when" seems a bit redundant, right? }

> Yup.  However, the entire phrase "especially...registry" is not helpful
> to the sense of the paragraph in question.  Consequently, I think
> that if a change is to be made, it would be better to delete
> everything from the comma to the word "registry".

Fine.  You've got to make a change here.
> ...
> ! 4.3 Par 1 Bullet 1 last sentence
>
> {ORIGINAL TEXT}
>    "o  A language priority list [RFC4647] describing a user's language
>        preferences.  This is a (possibly weighted) list of potentially-
>       unrelated varieties, expressing a preference, rather than as a
>       declaration about actual content."
> ...
> "This is a (possibly weighted) list of potentially unrelated varieties,
>  expressing a preference, rather than a declaration of actual content."

> Yup.  However, this sentence is entirely redundant, so if there is going
> to be a change, I'd rather just delete it.
Unsure.
>> ! 5.1, par 4, sentence 2
>>
>> { ORIGINAL TEXT }
>>
>> " Inserted records can be placed anywhere in the appropriate section; there is
>>   no guarantee of the order of the records beyond grouping them together by 'Type'."
>> ...
>> "Inserted records can be placed anywhere in the appropriate section; there
>> is no guarantee of their order beyond their being grouped together by 'Type'."

>Ok.  This "can" probably should be a MAY, but it's not a big deal and it's not
>worth changing.
The problem is I don't know here who is "grouping" the records; there is no subject antecendent for the word "grouping" and it needs one.
Anyway . . . it's not grammatically correct as it is now but readers may figure it out.
...
>> ! 4.4.2 Par 1, last sentence
>>
>> { ORIGINAL TEXT }
>>
>> "  Such truncation MUST NOT
>>    permit a subtag to be chopped off in the middle or the formation of
>>    invalid tags (for example, one ending with the "-" character)."
...
>> "Such truncation MUST NOT permit the formation of invalid tags--
>> either by chopping a subtag off in the middle, or by leaving a singleton without any subtag."

> Disagree.  The original text is gramamtically and technically correct.
> The proposed text changes the meaning in a subtly  incompatible way.
> Consider the case where chopping a subtag in the middle does *not*
> result in an invalid tag, but instead produces a tag containing a subtag
> not present in the original.
Hmm?
O.k.
> ....
> ? 3.5  "Registration Procedure for Subtags" Par 4, 2nd sentence
>
> { ORIGINAL TEXT }
>
> " Note that each response is not limited in
>    size so that the request can adequately describe the registration."
>
> {COMMENTS: the word "response" is not clear here, and this sentence
> is awkward and unclear as a whole.

I think the sentence is abundantly clear in context, and see no need for change.
...

> ? 3.7 par 4 & 5
...
> {COMMENT:  the two maintaining authorities, IANA, and the individual
> authority, might be confused by readers here??
...

> Given the topic of the section, I find it difficult to imagine such confusion
> taking place.
O.k. I suggested this change because people read these fast and want things to be ultra-clear but fine at this date; no need to clean it up further at this date . . .
The rest of my changes were not changes I considered that important & I do see your point in many case.
 
 
Thanks.
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com