Thanks for your review! I have updated the RFC document but will need to wait for the end of IETF 116 to publish.
Some remarks on your feedback below: On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, at 5:59 PM, Reese Enghardt via Datatracker wrote: > Major issues: > > Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 > > These sections consider "the [full] name of the entity represented by the > card". As I'm sure you're aware, names can be complex and contextual, and > which > name to use for a person is not always obvious. [...] We did not intend to restrict the "name" property to only be certain types of names. I now updated the description of this property to be: "The name of the entity represented by this Card. This can be any type of name, e.g. it can but need not be the legal name of a person." > > Section 2.2.5 > > For the grammaticalGender property, it seems that the values should be > "feminine" (rather than "female"), "masculine" (rather than "male"), and > "neuter", if the value labels are indeed intended to represent grammatical > gender (see, for example, the Britannica > Dictionary: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/neuter). As an alternative, > I > suggest changing these labels to more closely represent how one would > respectfully talk about individuals, by changing "neuter" to "gender-neutral" > while keeping "female" and "male". It is not clear to me why the > "animate" value exists in addition to the above grammatical genders, as this > value does not convey information about how to address the entity, but if you > are sure that there's a use case for this value, I'll defer to your expertise. Thanks, I renamed "male" and "female" to "masculine" and "feminine". We used Wikipedia to determine the common contrasts in grammatical genders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_type_of_grammatical_genders). This includes "animate" and "inanimate" for languages such as Georgian and Native American languages. I realized we did not include "common" but now have added this as well. > Section 1.5.4 > > The descriptions for @type and type sound very similar. Is it possible to > state > more clearly what the difference between the two is? Is it worth > mentioning/explaining the @ in an earlier notation section? I added an introductory section to clarify the purpose of the @type property and contrast it to the "type" property. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > The word "card" is capitalized in some sections and not others (e.g., > capitalized in 2.2.2 but not in 2.2.1) without an obvious difference in > semantics. Please consider making the capitalization consistent in such cases. Done > > Section 1.5.2 > > "-253+1 <= value <= 2^53-1" > Can the ^ be removed to make the notation consistent? Done
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
