W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > May 2013

Re: [Action-422] Editorial pass from Arle

From: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:32:48 +0200
Message-Id: <45548191-B549-4F99-B57A-552EF6FFB3FC@dfki.de>
To: Multilingual Web LT Public List Public List <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
See below

> Hi Arle,
> 
> Just some few comments:
> 
> (1) "rules element" is always right because it refers to <its:rules>

??? I don't find that I changed this anywhere. Maybe you are referring to this:

found on a rules elements[AL1] 
a rules element?  [AL1]at least one rules element? (Whatever is right here, we need to fix the a… elements disagreement.


The problem wasn't in rules element, but in “a … elements”

> (2) I found "memorize" cool as a technical term meaning "store in memory"

Is it used as such normally?

> (3) "Zero or one" is the right technical term

That change can be made to that as well. The "exactly" bit I left, but going to "Zero or one" is fine too.

> (4) I prefer "Id" instead of "id" or "ID"

Funny. I prefer either id or ID over Id. De gustibus non est disputandam.

> 
> (5) Why did you remove "Tool" in "Tool-related provenance information?"

I didn't intend to delete that. That should be ignored.

> Cheers -- Jörg
> 
> PS: Would you mind sharing your which/that-rule with me? Thanks!

See http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Whichvs.That.html?old=

In most of our cases, we were using restrictive clauses. For example, we had this sentence:

This type of user includes companies, which provide tools for authoring, translation or other flavors of content-related software solutions.

But what we wanted is:

This type of user includes companies that provide tools for authoring, translation or other flavors of content-related software solutions.

The reasons is that we are restricting the kind of companies referred to, not just stating that companies (happen to) provide tools, etc.… In other words we are including only one kind of company, but we aren't including, for instance, companies that make popsicles.

The rule is confusing even for native English speakers and, in some cases, the boundary isn't clear. In our document I think it is safer to use that in most cases since we do intend a limiting meaning. (E.g., in this example:

It contains an absolute selector that selects the nodes to which this rule applies.

which was:

It contains an absolute selector, which selects the nodes to which this rule applies.

The former is more accurate because you are looking for an absolute selector that does that, not any old absolute selector that also happens to do that.

Best,

Arle



Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 13:33:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:09 UTC