W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2005

[whatwg] [WF2] 6.2: maxlength Defintion - Grammatical Problems

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:53:44 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502031432370.6666@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> I misread that several times as I was skimming through, thinking it 
> meant that using maxlength on uri and email fields was generally a good 
> thing.  I suggest you reverse it so that it makes a little more sense. I 
> think this would be better:
> 
>   Authors are _discouraged from using_ maxlength on uri and email fields
>   _unless_ the server side processor actually has a limit on the size of
>   data fields it can usefully process. Valid URIs and e-mail addresses
>   in particular can often be surprisingly long.

Good idea. Done.


> Also, another grammatical error I came across several times throught the 
> draft is whenever it says "comply to", "complies to" or any other 
> variation.  The correct preposition to use is actually "with", not "to".  
> Thus, they should read "comply with", "complies with", etc.

I couldn't find any reference to back this up, but since I don't have a 
strong opinion either way, I changed them all to "with".

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 06:53:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:21 UTC