Lacking clear guidance, I am following Martin’s consensus
determination that we should converge on a version of the text that is “clearer
than the original, but doesn’t change its meaning”. I have therefore replaced
this paragraph:
--
While the 'Description' field itself is not guaranteed to be
stable and errata corrections MAY be undertaken from time to time, attempts to
provide translations or transcriptions of entries in the registry itself will
probably be frowned upon by the community or rejected outright, as changes of
this nature have an impact on the provisions in Section 3.4
(Stability of IANA Registry Entries).
--
With the following, adapted from Martin’s proposal, but aping as
closely as possible the original wording:
--
<t>The 'Description' field itself is not guaranteed to be
stable and MAY be modified via the registration process. Errata
corrections or clarifications of intent are most typical.
Attempts to provide translations or transcriptions of entries
in the registry itself will probably be frowned upon by the
community or
rejected outright, as changes of this nature have an impact on
the
provisions in <xref
target="ianastability"></xref>.</t>
--
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
From: Peter Constable
[mailto:petercon at microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:05 AM
To: Mark Davis; Martin J. Dürst
Cc: Phillips, Addison; Kent Karlsson; LTRU Working Group
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description
errata(Apps #13)
Mark, please see my reply to Randy.
From:
mark.edward.davis at gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis at gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:56 AM
To: Martin J. Dürst
Cc: Phillips, Addison; Peter Constable; Kent Karlsson; LTRU Working
Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description
errata(Apps #13)
I don't think yours is any
improvement on the old text, so if that is the only choice, I vote to leave as
is.
Mark
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 20:21, "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
wrote:
[hats on]
I declare consensus on the fact that we do not want to remove the MAY,
but are considering the clarification of the text. Please help converging on a
version of the text that is clearer than the original, but doesn't change its
meaning.
[Randy, this doesn't close this issue yet]
Please say whether you are okay with the new text proposed at the end of this
mail.
On 2009/06/11 1:35, Mark Davis wrote:
Although going in the right direction, I don't think it
quite hits the mark,
since it is still talking about "the community", which is not defined
and
has no other status in the document. It also gives no sense of who is doing
what. I have suggested language below, plus the other formulations for
comparison.
Mark:
The Description field MAY be modified, and is thus not guaranteed to be
stable. However, modifications are discouraged because of the negative
impact on the provisions in Section 3.4 (Stability of IANA Registry
Entries). Therefore the Language Subtag Reviewer SHOULD accept only
modifications for errata corrections or required clarifications of intent,
and SHOULD NOT accept translations or transcriptions of entries in the
registry.
This text introduces two new shoulds where we only had a
MAY, unrelated to the comment. This is clearly inappropriate at this stage of
the process.
OLD
While the 'Description' field itself is not
guaranteed to be stable
and errata corrections MAY be undertaken from time to time,
attempts
to provide translations or transcriptions of entries in the
registry
itself will probably be frowned upon by the community or rejected
outright, as changes of this nature have an impact on the
provisions
in Section 3.4.
Peter:
The Description field MAY be modified. Modifications for errata corrections
or clarifications of intent might be considered acceptable by the community,
but attempts to provide translations or transcriptions of entries in the
registry itself will probably be frowned upon by the community or rejected
outright, as changes of this nature have an impact on the provisions in
Section 3.4 (Stability of IANA Registry Entries). Note that, since
modifications are possible, the Description field is not guaranteed to be
stable.
I agree with Mark that 'community' isn't well defined. But
it was in our original text, so we can leave it in. However, Peter's text
doubles it. I propose removing the first one. I also re-added the quotes to
'Description', split a sentence, removed " or clarifications of
intent" (well intended, but not in the original text), and changed the
'might' to 'are' ("errata might be acceptable" sounds as if some
errata are not acceptable, which I would have difficulties understanding). The
new text I'm proposing is:
NEW text:
The 'Description' field MAY be modified. Modifications for errata corrections
or clarifications of intent are considered acceptable. However, attempts to
provide translations or transcriptions of entries in the registry itself will
probably be frowned upon by the community or rejected outright, as changes of
this nature have an impact on the provisions in Section 3.4. Note that, since
modifications are possible, the Description field is not guaranteed to be
stable.
Please say whether you are okay with the new text or want some additional
changes. If you propose additional changes, please include your full new text
after motivating the changes. If you propose changes, please try to stay as
close as possible to the text and intent of the original text.
Regards, Martin.
--
|