Bug#647645: More precise reference to ASCII characters, and few phrasing issues
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
Severity: normal
Summary:
Section 5.1 contain
1. non precise reference to ASCII characters
2. Two phrasing issues.
Quoting http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2011/11/msg00002.html
--- On Fri, 11/4/11, Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk> wrote:
> From: Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: following the same syntax as the continuation lines the folded fields
> To: debian-l10n-english@lists.debian.org
> Cc: "Regid Ichira" <regid23@yahoo.com>
> Date: Friday, November 4, 2011, 1:29 PM
> Regid Ichira wrote:
> > Regarding `following the same syntax as the
> continuation lines the
> > folded fields':
> > Is a relating word missing? Should the last
> `the' replaced with
> > `of', or `in', and read `following the same syntax as
> the
> > continuation lines of folded fields'?
> >
> > The context is
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-controlsyntax:
> >
> >> multiline
> >> The value of a multiline field may comprise
> multiple continuation
> >> lines. The first line of the value, the part
> on the same line as
> >> the field name, often has special
> significance or may have to be
> >> empty. Other lines are added following the
> same syntax as the
> >> continuation lines the folded fields.
> Whitespace, including
> >> newlines, is significant in the values of
> multiline fields.
>
> Yes, there's definitely a missing preposition there, and I
> would
> agree that "following the same syntax as the continuation
> lines of
> folded fields" is the most natural fix.
>
> In fact I notice another problem earlier in section 5.1:
>
> >> Each paragraph consists of a series of data
> fields; each field
> >> consists of the field name, followed by a colon
> and then the
> >> data/value associated with that field. The field
> name is composed
> >> of printable ASCII characters (i.e., characters
> that have values
> >> between 33 and 126, inclusive) except colon and
> must not with a
> >> begin with #.
>
> That last sentence has some jumbled or maybe just redundant
> words.
>
> Less importantly, it refers to ASCII 58 by name ("colon")
> but
> inconsistently identifies ASCII 35 just as "#". The
> problem is of
> course that hash/pound/numbersign/octothorpe has no
> universally
> recognised name, so maybe it would be better to standardise
> in the
> other direction.
>
> On top of everything else, many authorities include space
> (and even
> tab) as "printable" characters. Instead of opening
> that can of worms
> I would suggest just quoting the range:
>
> The field name must be composed of ASCII
> characters in the range
> [!-~] other than ":", and must not begin
> with "#".
>
> --
> JBR with qualifications in linguistics,
> experience as a Debian
> sysadmin, and probably no clue about
> this particular package
>
Reply to: