Re: Constitution: typographical errors
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Constitution: typographical errors
- From: Matthias Lutz <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:54:28 +0200
- Message-id: <20040621185428.GA1676@dopey.sesamstrasse>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20040621142442.GA13664@nail>
- References: <20040621124752.GC833@dopey.sesamstrasse> <20040621142442.GA13664@nail>
* email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb am 21.06.04 um 15:56 Uhr:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 02:47:52PM +0200, Matthias Lutz wrote:
> > there exists a bug report (#241006), filed by me against
> *sigh* I suppose we must, to avoid surreptitious edit flamwars.
I agree with that.
> Please read http://www.debian.org/vote/ a bit (although the howto is
> out of date, IIRC), try to format it as a proposal and ask a developer
> to make that proposal.
> BTW, is §§ really correct?
I think so, because this passage refers to sections 7 and A. Double
section signs (or 'ss') are a common device for citation of multiple
sections in legal texts. Correct usage seems to be described in "The
Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation" (rule 3.4). I am still
searching for a copy of this or a similar book to quote from, however.
Anyway, the passage you are referring to does not employ even a single
section sign, which is at variance with the style elsewhere in the