Re: [Action-422] Editorial pass from Arle

Hi Arle,

Many thanks for the in-depth explanations which definitely support my 
non-native speaker understanding of the which/that cases.

In computer science we often use "memorize" in such cases.

Cheers -- Jörg

On May 28, 2013 15:32 (CEST), Arle Lommel wrote:
> 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 ruleselements[AL1] <#_msocom_1>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     a rules element? [AL1] <#_msoanchor_1>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 … element*s*”
>
>> (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 14:11:47 UTC