Subject: Re: [Ltru] Edith Whitehead's proposed editorial changes to 4646bis

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:16:38 -0700

To help find a way out of this, I suggest that any passages in 
draft-4646bis (or draft-4645bis, if you find any) that are indisputably 
incorrect in any flavor of English be corrected, and all other editorial 
changes be dismissed.

That is, a passage like "if when" should be corrected, by removing 
either "if" or "when."  But all occurrences of "different from/than/to" 
should be left as is.  (Like Randy, I hate "different than," but 
reasonable people do differ on this.)  And we should not entertain any 
questions of awkwardness or redundancy at this point.  We've had *years* 
to polish this draft.  Look at any 10 arbitrarily selected RFCs from the 
past decade; the style, grammar, and usage in draft-4646bis is certainly 
up to the standards of those documents.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 08:40:21 -0800

I agree.

Mark

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 08:16, Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> That is, a passage like "if when" should be corrected, by removing either
> "if" or "when."  But all occurrences of "different from/than/to" should be
> left as is.  (Like Randy, I hate "different than," but reasonable people do
> differ on this.)  And we should not entertain any questions of awkwardness
> or redundancy at this point.  We've had *years* to polish this draft.  Look
> at any 10 arbitrarily selected RFCs from the past decade; the style,
> grammar, and usage in draft-4646bis is certainly up to the standards of
> those documents.
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>