Op za 13-09-2003, om 18:40 schreef MJ Ray: > On 2003-09-12 23:16:17 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote: > > It's been brought to my attention, however, that 'opiniated' is a > > strange construct in the English language, and that 'opinionated' > > would > > be better. I'm not a native English speaker; > > I am native English, but I think the normal name would be "Opinion > Section" or "Opinion/Editorial Section" to borrow from newspaper > jargon. If there's consensus on that term, I'll use that, then. > >> The labelling requirements for removed sections seem nasty too, > >> adding more > >> unmodifiable parts to the document. > > They're just one line. That's a hell of a lot less than an entire "GNU > > Manifesto", for shouting out loud. > > Still a hell of a lot worse than ideal. It's not clear to my mind > whether a document in Debian containing these unmodifiable sections > would be free software. The only difference between them and FDL > invariant sections is size, isn't it? Not really. They replace larger blocks of text which have been removed. There's no markup or placing requirement; you could put them in small print somewhere in the document; at the first page, at their original place, or perhaps on the back cover. I specifically did not make any other requirement than that they have to be there. You're not allowed to do such things with Invariant sections. In fact, were you allowed to do so, it probably wouldn't help you, since it's hard to hide a large block of text in small print. [...] > >> I don't understand "substance and tone" if it is modifiable. > > That's literally taken from the FDL. > > Sure, I don't expect you to answer for others. I just note it as > something that confuses me. OK. > [Open specification] > > I hope this explains what I tried to do there, but I couldn't find a > > clear enough wording to use in that paragraph. What an "Opaque" format > > is, should be easy: everything which is not Transparent, is Opaque. > > OK, maybe some work needs to be done there, Surely :-) > but I assume that the > group you mentioned is trying to tighten their wording? No. The definition of that group is done in Dutch, and is perfect for their purpose. I tried to translate it to English, and tried to rearrange it so that there's no need to mention the definition of all three terms used by openstandaarden.be That didn't work out too well. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend