Re: xpath-datamodel comments - grammar/punctuation/clarity/typos

Michael Kay wrote:

>>>Good writers of English know when to break that rule.
>>
>>Oh, great.  I try to help clarify the specification and you start
>>off with an ad hominem attack.
> 
> 
> No, not at all, it was an ad hominem defence of the editor.

Are you claiming that I was attacking the editors' abilities when all
I ever addressed was the state of the text, or did you mean something
else?

>>So, how do you argue that the comma isn't wrong and shouldn't be a
>>semicolon (or other alternatives)?  
> 
> 
> Lynne Truss: "Now, so many highly respected writers adopt the splice comma
> that a rather unfair rules emerges on this one: only do it if you're
> famous.... E. M. Forster did it; Smoerset Maugham did it; the list is
> endless. Done knowingly by an established writer, the comma splice is
> effective, poetic, dashing... Done ignorantly by ignorant people, it is
> awful."
> 
> Norm Walsh is famous, give him the benefit of the doubt. [sic].

You still seem to be dodging the issue.  I gave my analysis of why
the particular case should use the standard semicolon.  What's your
counter-analysis?

Also, notice that your Truss quote uses semicolons as I argue and not
commas as you argue.

Additionally, the specification doesn't need to be poetic or dashing,
and, as my analysis showed, a comma splice is _less_ effective, not
more.

Why do you object to clarifying the wording of the specification?

(On the philosophical side, given that the specification itself
consists of rules to follow to make sure things work right, why
would you object to following standard rules?

On the practical side, why would you object to following standard
rules so the text is easier to understand?  Technical documentation
is usually complex enough to start with that it should follow
standard rules to try to be as clear as possible.  Additionally,
not being literature, its audience is different, probably including
a lot more people for whom English is not their native language.)


Daniel

Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 21:39:38 UTC