[Tools-team] Re: Language review of draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08

On Wed, 2005/04/20 (MDT), <henrik@levkowetz.com> wrote:

>> -   Submitter authentication and submission authorization is in scope.
>> +   Submitter authentication and submission authorization are in scope.
>>
>> The native speakers assured me that the original "are" is correct here  
>> :-).
>
> Hmm.  I wonder if it could be a difference between British and American
> then.  Both of the sub-items are singular, so I really don't see how  
> 'are' is appropriate.  But it's not a big point.

I was tought that (A and B) are always "multiple" while (A or B) is  
"singular"
iff B is singular. It makes sense in some other languages I pretend to  
know,
but I am sure it is not universal.  Let's see what the RFC Editor's opinion
on  this important subject is :-).

>>      Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript
>> -   format versions must ...
>> +   format must ...
>>
>> The term "draft version" is defined and is different from the (also
>> defined) "draft format" term. I wanted to avoid the format/version
>> confusion here.
>
> Then some other change is needed.  The language is not good as it is.

Yes, I agree that it sounds awkward. We can fix it during "Authors 48  
hours"
if we are lucky enough to avoid another revision.

Thanks,

Alex.

_______________________________________________
Tools-team mailing list
Tools-team@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-team