On 14/12/2014 2:29 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
On 14/12/14 16:50, Sam Aldrin wrote:
Hi Elwyn and Tom,
...
3. ’Sparse’ is very much used in MIB and is explicitly identified. We
also added this after we received the comment as part of AD review
(Ref: Dec 28 2013) that, we didn’t clearly identify ‘sparse’ auguments.
I read that comment as saying the same thing as me (i.e., the wrong
word). Be that as it may, "sparse" really isn't the right word - it
just sounds wrong to my ear. The main dictionary definition is " thinly
dispersed or scattered." . As I said previously "limited" or "slight"
would be (IMO) better if you feel it is necessary but in most of the
cases the text would not be damaged by leaving it out altogether. Now
it is (almost) a standard, whether it is limited or sparse or anything
else is moot - implementers just have to get on with it!
"Sparse" is a term of art -- see RFC 4181 Section 4.6.4, first bulklet.
Tom
...
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
