RE: New Article [URGENT]: Understanding the New Language Tags

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the comments.  I hadn't felt at liberty to move too far from the
original article text, but I asked Addison, and we implemented your
comments. See below for details...


> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] 
> Sent: 15 May 2006 16:07
> To: 'Richard Ishida'
> Subject: RE: New Article [URGENT]: Understanding the New Language Tags
> 
> Comments follow.
> 
...
> > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> > Sent: 15 May 2006 11:18
> > To: Richard Ishida; GEO
> > Cc: Addison Phillips
> > Subject: Re: New Article [URGENT]: Understanding the New 
> Language Tags
> > 
> > Hello Richard,
> > 
> > A few nits and a few important comments:
> > 
> > Please changed the parentheses in the first sentence of the 
> article to 
> > something else, i.e.
> > 
> >      "Language tags are identifiers used in protocols or 
> document formats
> >       to indicate the natural language of the content (or 
> to express a
> >       user's preference for a specific language or set of 
> languages)."
> > =>
> >      "Language tags are identifiers used in protocols or 
> document formats
> >       to indicate the natural language of the content, or 
> to express a
> >       user's preference for a specific language or set of 
> languages."
> > 
> > This is important, because both uses are of equal importance.
> 
> I agree.

Done. 

> > 
> > "rival for importance" -> "rival in importance" (way more popular on
> > Google)
> 
> Fine with me.

Done.

> > 
> > 
> > The following paragraph should be considered very 
> carefully, and fixed 
> > before publication (IMPORTANT!)
> > 
> > "There are few standards of interest to the globalization community 
> > that rival BCP 47 for importance. A revision to this 
> standard is bound 
> > to provoke intense scrutiny and any major changes are bound 
> to invite 
> > controversy."
> > 
> > We have had a fair share of controversy already; most of 
> the stuff is 
> > now well baked. I don't think it helps having a sentence like this, 
> > because it doesn't help the article, and it isn't picked up 
> later in 
> > the article. If you want to tease the reader to read the 
> rest of the 
> > article, then write something like: The revision of this 
> standard led 
> > a lot of discussion over controversial points. These, as 
> well as what 
> > solution was taken and why, is explained below.
> > (the next sentence also has to be adapted somewhat)
> 
> This was written for a magazine article, where having a 
> provocative statement invited interest in reading the remainder :-).
> 
> I think we can kill that paragraph and fix the following 
> paragraph's first sentence to say:
> 
> --
> In November of 2005 the IETF, which is the standards body 
> that defines these tags, approved a set of documents to 
> update BCP 47, making changes in the structure of language 
> tags and their use.
> --

Done.


> > 
> > 
> > Given that we only show the Author at the bottom, and in 
> small print, 
> > language like "With Mark Davis of IBM, I was an originator 
> and editor 
> > of the documents" should be tweaked, e.g. to read "With 
> Mark Davis of 
> > IBM, I (Addison Phillips) was an originator and editor of the 
> > documents"
> > (or some such).
> 
> Why don't we just remove these sentences:
> 
> --
> With Mark Davis of IBM, I was an originator and editor of the 
> documents (collectively referred to here as "RFC 3066bis") 
> that eventually became the new BCP 47. We worked for nearly 
> three years, individually and as part of the Language Tag 
> Registry Update ("LTRU") working group of the IETF, to create 
> this revision.
> --

Deleted, but I was also feeling that the article needed a brief overview of
its purpose at the very beginning, so I took the liberty of adding the
following text before the intro.

"As the new language tags and software based on RFC 3066bis begin to appear,
it's important to review what language tags are, how the new standard
changes them, and what remains to be done. Addison Phillips, co-editor of
RFC3066bis, with Mark Davis of IBM, provides an overview here."


> > 
> > There are way too many 'would's and 'might's.
> 
> I would go through the document and reconsider these, but 
> they might not make a difference.
> > 
> > Matching: "This work should be in IETF Last Call shortly after this 
> > article is published.": Don't make predictions. State the current 
> > state.
> > When things change, change the article; on the Web, this is 
> exteremely 
> > easy.
> 
> Use instead: "This work is currently in its IETF Working 
> Group Last Call."
> (if you publish it today).
> 
> If you publish it tomorrow, this will be wrong, since the 
> document will have finished its last call :-).

It might be easy on the web, but I don't want to edit again tomorrow and
then in a week or so after that.  So I changed it to "This work is currently
is, at the time of writing, awaiting completion of the Last Call process."

That should keep us for a while.


> 
> > 
> > Looking over the article as a whole, there definitely should be 
> > something like a TOC or a paragraph explaining what will be 
> discussed. 
> > In print, it's easy to leaf through a couple pages and pick up the 
> > headlines, but people don't do that on the web.
> > (IMPORTANT)

I added the brief intro at the top, and there's an 'on this page' list.

> > 
> > If these items can be fixed, this will be a nice article providing 
> > very useful information.
> 
> Thanks, as always, for the comments.
>

Received on Monday, 15 May 2006 15:58:44 UTC