Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
- From: MJ Ray <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 02:06:55 -0000
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1061038729.3561.43.camel@localhost>
Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote:
>> They are using definitions which are *different* to the normal.
> If that were true, and if there actually *was* a 'normal' definition,
> why would they be using a different definition in the first place?
Because it suits their purpose.
> I say you're wrong, [...]
I think most of your current posts can be boiled down to this. When you
start bringing new data again, then I'll write more, but I have to
agree with whoever it was that commented that this is going nowhere fast
again now. There's so much else to do and this discussion about how best
to help the misunderstanders isn't doing it. It's time to bow out with:
> I wasn't suggesting the *document* is ambiguous. I'm only suggesting the
> meaning of *one* *specific* word *could* be ambiguous to some, and that
> it's *our* job to make sure people understand it correctly, not that of
> those who read it.
...a reminder that it's impossible to do this. We have to assume that
the reader of the English-language version is actually capable of reading
English and understanding the words. For all we know, someone could be
interpreting "the" as a reference to a hot drink, so I hope that you will
clarify it for them, because it's our job to make sure people understand
it no matter how dumb they're being, right?
If they are in any doubt about what some of it means, there is no shortage
of people to ask. If some of the recent crop of people who started on about
how documentation is not software had bothered to do that...
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.