Re: Some editorial matters for -syntax-

At 10:28 01/12/98 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
[...]
>> >In 3.6, I would eliminate the phrase "suggesting an "ideal" option
>> >that is equally or more preferred than any other"; the direction of
>> >the 0 to 1 range has already been given, and this seems to muddy the
>> >waters from that description.
>> 
>> The intent was to clarify the consequence of omitting ;q=x.  If it doesn't
>> do that then it should go.
>
>Sorry, I meant that the first part of the sentence should stay 
>(indicating that the omitting ;q=x means  ;q=1), but that the
>ending phrase "suggesting an ...." should go.    I think the
>first part does illustrate the consequence of omitting ;q=x
>and should be retained.

No, it's me who's not being clear here -- that's what I thought you meant.

My point here was that the extra clause was to underline the consequence of
defaulting to ";q=1".   If it doesn't do that then I agree it should go.  I
was just resisting a little because I felt that the point being made was
legitimate, if structly redundant.

To summarize, the present text is:

  In the absence of any explicitly applied quality value, a value of
  "1" is assumed, suggesting an "ideal" option that is equally or
  more preferred than any other.

I accept your observation that the phrasing, as given, is not crystal
clear.  The minimum text would be:

  In the absence of any explicitly applied quality value, a value of
  "1" is assumed.

An alternative, which repeats the point I wanted to emphasize here, might be:

  In the absence of any explicitly applied quality value, a value of
  "1" is assumed  (i.e. the corresponding option is as good as any other).

>> >In 4.2.4.2, I fear that we may actually have to say the + or - sign
>> >must precede the expression "n/m" so we are not later asked why we
>> >allow "10/-2".  I realize that the very name "rational number" should
>> >exclude this, but it's probably best to make it very clear.
>> 
>> I thought that it was clear from both the syntax and section 4.2.4.2
>> (paragraph 2, 1st sentence) that the sign must precede both integers of a
>> rational value.
>> 
>> If you still feel this needs emphasizing then I can add something.
>
>Sadly, I do.  I agree that it really ought to be clear from several
>other things, but it is the kind of thing that can't be emphasized
>enough.

OK.  I propose adding a note at the end of section 4.2.4.2

    NOTE:  A rational number sign must precede the first integer.
    Thus, the following are NOT valid rational numbers:
        5/+1
        4/-2

>> >In 5.5, would is it clearer to say "comparable" rather than related in
>> >the statement "(NE a b): 'a' is not equal and not related to 'b'." ?
>> 
>> If you think that's better.  What I really want to say is:
>> 
>>     'a' is not equal to, less than or greater than 'b'
>> 
>> but that seemed like a bit of a mouthful.
>
>Everything I've come up with sounds a bit clumsy too, but we
>have to be a bit clumsy here.  Below are a few attempts:
[...]

In the interests of unambiguity, I think I should bite the bullet and make
a mouthful of it.

Unless you request otherwise, I shall accumulate these editorial changes
for an update to be published after the IETF meeting.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email protected])