Resolving, some but not all, GEN-ART comments. #13
Conversation
| standardization or by other means of agreement. Existing protocols (for | ||
| example SIP <xref target="RFC3261"/> or XMPP <xref target="RFC6120"/>) | ||
| standardization or by other means of agreement. Existing protocols | ||
| (e.g. SIP <xref target="RFC3261"/> or XMPP <xref target="RFC6120"/>) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a principled objection to using Latin-based abbreviations when there are common English words that mean exactly the same thing. It provides a stumbling block for international readers. (I had to look up "e. g." to make sure there was no difference in meaning - which there isn't, according to Wiktionary).
|
I can see putting it back, but we should be consistent there were two e.g. and two for examples. My matchy-matchy tendencies getting to me. |
|
:-) I can flip it in the other direction. Sometimes I show off my English skills, othertimes I want to write simple English. |
|
No worries. I would go with whatever the RFC editor is going to end up doing, but to be honest I don’t know which they’d prefer.
spt
… On Mar 21, 2017, at 18:39, Harald Alvestrand ***@***.***> wrote:
:-) I can flip it in the other direction. Sometimes I show off my English skills, othertimes I want to write simple English.
Trapped by my own filters .... the review ended up in my gen-art inbox, which I stopped reading years ago when I left the gen-art team....
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
This deals with some of Meral's GEN-ART comments.