Hi Jay,
At 01:21 PM 05-06-2025, Jay Daley wrote:
People may not be aware that while the guidance has been withdrawn,
the table of examples included in the document has not:
https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1
That table is under a section titled "Plain Language" and is
explained as "The table below displays how some sentences could be
edited (or not) to incorporate plain and precise language.". e.g.
replacing "whitelist" with "allowlist".
This framing of "plain and precise" could be considered clearer and
less contentious (and therefore more likely to be adopted by
authors) than the framing of "inclusive".
A national standard fulfills the needs of a country. A non-national
standard has a wider scope. An organization seeking to devise
non-national standards usually brings together people affiliated with
businesses from different countries. This is where the organization
has to tackle problems such as language. The organization which was
known as "IETF" used the English language for historical reasons. It
attracted authors from different countries over the years. Some of
the people reading their works might not speak English in their every
day life. That does not necessarily mean that they do not know how
to read or write in English.
According to NIST PR 1502.01, "The withdrawn publication and cover
page will remain at the same DOI, unless it is determined that the
publication should be removed from distribution." The document which
you cited could be removed from distribution or amended if the
publisher wishes to do that.
As for what is "plain and precise", that is influenced by the needs
of the organization, e.g. the organization aims to fulfill the needs
of a country. From what I understand, the issue here is about what
are the appropriate words to use in an IETF RFC. It is awkward to
tell someone who has been writing in English for several years how to
write in English. It can also cause some debate, e.g. please see the
thread at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/iUbkutdNpXYgua8kejbsa63ZMv
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
