GH-100: Literal equality and language tags

[afs]

This closes #100.

This suggestion turns the list into bullet points.

Notes:
It is written as "case sensitive" in i18n-glossary.
It is "ASCII case-insenitive" in i18n-glossary.

---

Preview | Diff

[TallTed]

There's no reason the various comparisons need to be done in the order of this presentation, so an unordered list is more appropriate.

Suggested change

	<ol>
	<li>the two <a>lexical forms</a> compare equal</li>
	<li>the two <a>datatype IRIs</a> compare equal</li>
	<li>the two <a>language tags</a> (if any) compare equal</li>
	<li>the two <a>base directions</a> (if any) compare equal</li>
	</ol>
	<ul>
	<li>the two <a>lexical forms</a> compare equal</li>
	<li>the two <a>datatype IRIs</a> compare equal</li>
	<li>the two <a>language tags</a> (if any) compare equal</li>
	<li>the two <a>base directions</a> (if any) compare equal</li>
	</ul>

[afs]

Change made directly because of the item below.

I actually originally drafted it with bullets and changed to numbers because list above this one is numbered, as are other lists. There's a mix (maybe they are that way because it helps in saying "point 2" etc).

[gkellogg]

We might also consider updating the following sentence:

A literal is a language-tagged string if the third element is present and the fourth element is not present. Lexical representations of language tags MAY be case normalized, (for example, by converting to lower case).

and instead say "(for example, by canonicalizing as defined by BCP47 §4.5)". We shouldn't be encouraging normalization to lower case.

[afs]

We might also consider updating the following sentence:

Change made.

[TallTed]

Looks like this ordered list is what you refer to... as it appears to be the only ordered list in the document previewed from here.

I suggest that also be changed to unordered (likewise the nested sub-list), as the order by which the items are evaluated doesn't appear to me to matter; they're all mutually exclusive.

[afs]

I suggest that also be changed to unordered (likewise the nested sub-list), as the order by which the items are evaluated doesn't appear to me to matter; they're all mutually exclusive.

@TallTed would you like to put in a PR for that? Thanks.

This PR is in response to a specific comment #100. I find it easier to make progress if editorial PR's don't grow. It can become problematic with longer living and wider PRs.