Subject: [Ltru] matching draft, issue 50

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:24:52 +0900

As a technical contributor, I have asked for an improvement
in the first sentence of the Abstract of the matching draft.
I have proposed two new versions, and Randy has proposed a
third, which would be fine by me, too.

As a co-chair, I'm interested in getting this issue closed
quickly, but I don't want to just pick one version. So please
provide your preference. If you have yet another version, that's
okay, too, but if possible, please try to select from one of
those already on the table (including the current wording)
so that we can close this issue quickly.

So here are the four proposals, in chronological order:

Proposal A (current text):

   This document describes a syntax, called a "language-range", for
   specifying items in a user's language preferences, called a "language
   priority list".

Proposal B (from Martin):

   This document describes a syntax, called a "language-range", for
   specifying items in the list of a user's language preferences,
   called a "language priority list".

Proposal C (from Martin):

   This document describes a syntax, called a "language-range", for
   specifying items in a user's list of language preferences.

Proposal D (from Randy):

   This document describes a syntax, called a "language-range".
   This syntax can function in protocol-specific constructs as part
   of a language priority list, indicating language preferences.

Please express your preference. "anything is okay" is of course
okay, but won't move us ahead.

BTW, as a technical contributor, my preference is C before D before
B before A.

Regards,     Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]     

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:53:07 -0400

> BTW, as a technical contributor, my preference is C before D before

+1

-- 
John Cowan      [email-masked]        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:29:53 +0900

[co-chair hat (or actually, shepherd hat) on]

The IETF Last Call has ended. I'd like to move forward, at least
with issues that seem to have reached consensus (mostly by nobody
bringing up any opposing views, which is fine for the minor
editorial issues that we are dealing with at the moment).

The reply from John below is the only reply on issue 50 that I have
seen on the list.

Absent sudden disagreement, I would like to instruct the editors
to prepare a new version of the draft with variant C for the Abstract,
as well as with the other edits as described in
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04979.html,
and a diff to the -14 version.

Regards,     Martin.

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:38:23 -0700

I will attend to this in the morning, running the usual tools, the spell
checker, and so forth on the finished document, along with a diff.

Could you please send me a complete list of the issues (or remind me of the
link)? I would like to ensure that I don't miss anything.

Once I have done this, I will post it on inter-locale and announce it on the
list. Should I proceed to submit it or wait for comments/instructions?

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: mercredi 21 juin 2006 18:30
> To: Addison Phillips; Mark Davis
> Cc: LTRU Working Group; Ted Hardie
> Subject: Moving forward (Was: [Ltru] matching draft, issue 50)
>

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:22:02 +0900

Hello Addison, Mark,

>and a diff to the -14 version.

I have checked all the changes you have made based on the diff
at http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/matching-14-15-diff.html.
Many thanks for your work.
Everything looks okay to me except the Abstract where you have
chosen variant D instead of variant C.

In http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04978.html,
I asked for preferences for various versions. Only John Covan and
me expressed preferences, both for C. I have then asked you to use
variant C in the mail above, and have also put that on the issues
list.

I don't care about this issue too much, but I'd like to make sure
it is handled properly. Can you please change to variant C, or
explain why you really and seriously want variant D?

If you use variant C, please go ahead and submit a new version.
If you prefer variant D, please say so.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:57:34 -0700

My mistake. I have changed the xml source, regenerated the text and html
versions and posted them to inter-locale.com. The dynamic link for the diff
should still work (albeit not for you?). I'll regenerate a diff in a little
while.

Please confirm that the file is now correct.

Addison

Addison Phillips

> Sent: vendredi 23 juin 2006 19:22
> Subject: Re: Moving forward (Was: [Ltru] matching draft, issue 50)
> 
> Hello Addison, Mark,
>

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:21:04 +0900

At 11:57 06/06/24, Addison Phillips wrote:
>My mistake.

No problem.

>I have changed the xml source, regenerated the text and html
>should still work (albeit not for you?).

It worked today.

>I'll regenerate a diff in a little while.
>

It is. Please go ahead and submit it to the Internet-Drafts Editor.
Thanks again for all your efforts.

Regards,    Martin.