Re: [website/master] Fix some typos in the REJECT-FAQS
On 28/06/13 09:33, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Luca Falavigna <dktrkranz@debian.org>
> ---
> REJECT-FAQ.html | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
Hi Luca - a bit of feedback with my l10n-english hat on:
> - <li>trying to keep the archive legal,</li>
> + <li>trying to keep the archive legal</li>
I think it's more correct to have punctuation on the end of list items,
although that's more often a semicolon than a comma on non-final items.
That's debatable and I don't remember if debian has a house style on
it, though.
> - <p class="text">Of course this does not take away the developers
> - responsibility to do their own QA before upload. It's the maintainer who
> - is responsible for everything that happens with a bad package, not the
> - FTP Team!</p>
> + <p class="text">Of course this does not take away the developers'
> + responsibility to do their own QA before the upload. It's the maintainer
> + who is responsible for everything that happens with a bad package, not
> + the FTP Team!</p>
What you've written is an improvement, but "before uploading" may be better.
> - more reasons. If there is a third column it states the date when the
> - entry was added to this list.</p>
> + more reasons. The third column it states the date when the entry was
> + added to this list.</p>
It should be "The third column states..." as English doesn't usually use
"it" for emphasis, unlike some other languages.
> - talks only about PHP, the PHP Group and <i>includes Zend Engine</i>,
> + talks only about PHP, the PHP Group, and <i>includes Zend Engine</i>,
This is controversial but I don't like commas in front of and.
> - non-free license, like some CC licenses, makes the original tarball
> + non-free license, like some CC licenses: makes the original tarball
> non-free. This is one of the cases where you need to repackage it
> - (look in the archive for examples, mostly having .dfsg. in their
> - tarballs name).</td>
> + (look in the archive for examples, mostly having "dfsg" in their
> + tarballs' name).</td>
Both of the above changes look like errors to me. Both change the
meaning of the text slightly.
> - Instead add a .dfsg. somewhere to the version part to mark it. Renaming the source
> - just confuses tools like the PTS who are source-package based, and also confuses
> - users who cant simply fetch sources anymore without looking what source package
> + Instead add a "dfsg" somewhere to the version part to mark it. Renaming the source
> + just confuses tools like the PTS, which are source-package based, and also confuses
> + users, who can't simply fetch sources anymore without looking what source package
> it is first.
Again, I think .dfsg. is more accurate than "dfsg" there, but maybe it
should be marked as code.
I've not commented on most of the changes, which seem like improvements:
well done!
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
Reply to: