Re: [FWD: LSB specification review bug [ #422418 ] Offer to proof-read for typos and mispellings] (fwd)
Sounds great. I'm probably useless for all but the barest technical
checking, but I can help with grammar/typos, if it's useful. For lack of
a better method, I just started at the top and started reading, but if
you'd like to coordinate my efforts, I have about an hour a day set aside
to read through the spec like this and I read pretty quickly. Guide me,
oh IBM One.
-t.
On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Bruce Clavey wrote:
> Greetings Trever,
>
> Appreciated your note. I've begun a similar effort on improving the LSB
> spec integrity (grammatical and consistency) that may have been unknown to
> Chris Yeoh as he communicated with you in mid-June. I welcome and
> encourage our collaboration. At this point, our duplicated effort is
> minimal, so we should try to coordinate soon. I've developed a plan for
> this task, and would like to see if it can be improved upon to meet your
> interests as well.
>
> Will look forward to hearing from you. Thanks!
> _____________________________
> Bruce W. Clavey
> Linux Information Development
> IBM Linux Technology Center
> 512-838-1262 (t/l 678-1262)
> > claveyb@us.ibm.com <
>
>
> On 08/03/2001, 1:33 PM, Trever Furnish wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> You replied regarding my offer to typo-check the lsb doc, and this is the
> first I've actually had time to work on it. Here's what I've noted so
> far. I don't know if there's some better format that I could put the
> notes in - perhaps diffs of some docbook original? So I'll just refer to
> sections and paragraphs for now. I'll go through it from top to
> bottom and report whatever I notice. Hope it helps.
>
> Sincerely,
> Trever Furnish, trever@wondious.com, 317.714.1401
>
> Notes:
> Section: Chapter 1. Introduction
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/introduction.html
> Problem: Misspelling of the word "process" as "proces" in the last
> sentence on the page.
>
> Section: Chapter 1. Introduction. Purpose.
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/overpurp.html
> Problem: The word "the" appears inappropriately in the next to the last
> sentence in the last paragraph. The sentence reads, "Only those routines
> not described in standards referenced by this document, or extensions to
> those standards, are described in THE detail." Instead, it should read
> "Only those routines not described in standards referenced by this
> document, or extensions to those standards, are described in detail."
>
> Section: Chapter 1. Introduction. Related Standards. Table 1-1.
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/rstandards.html
> Problem: In column two of row four (which begins with "gABI_41", there's a
> missing space in "System VApplication", which should instead be "System V
> Application".
>
> Section: Chapter 1. Introduction. Related Standards. Table 1-1.
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/rstandards.html
> Problem: In column two of the row starting with "SUS-XCU", there's a
> missing space between the number "5" and the text "(ISBN:".
>
> Section: Chapter 1. Introduction. Related Implementations. Table 1-2.
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/rimplementations.html
> Problem: Not sure this is a problem, but the row beginning with "RPC &
> XDR" ends with "Still need API reference, instead of protocol reference".
> Someone's idea of a "changemelater" notation?
>
> Section: Chapter 1. Introduction. Related Libraries.
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/rlibraries.html
> Problem: In the first sentence, the word "libraries" should not be
> capitalized.
>
> Problem: In the last sentence, there should be no double-quotation mark
> after the word "default".
>
> Section: Chapter 1. Introduction. Terminology.
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/terms.html
> Problem: This may not be a problem at all, just a bit confusing. The
> definition for the term "can" says that it describes "a permissible
> optional feature or behavior", but later sans that an "application CAN
> RELY ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE FEATURE OR BEHAVIOR." If it's "optional",
> how can it be relied upon to be present?
>
> Section: Chapter 4. Special Sections. ELF Special Sections.
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/specialsections.html
> Problem: In the first sentence, the word "specification" should not be
> capitalized.
>
> Section: Chapter 4. Special Sections. Linux Special Sections.
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/linuxspecial.html
> Problem: In the first sentence, "Linux specific" should be hyphenated as
> "Linux-specific".
>
> Section: Chapter 10. Libraries. cfsetspeed
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/baselib-cfsetspeed-3.html
> Problem: In the subsection "Getting and Setting the Baud Rate", the last
> sentence ends with "referenced by tp to speed" -- it should read
> "referenced by t to speed" (no "p"). Um, at least I think that's what it
> meant...
>
> Section: Chapter 10. Libraries. daemon.
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/baselib-daemon-3.html
> Problem: The subsection called "Errors" begins with "On error occurs, -1
> is returned..." The word "occurs" should be removed.
>
> Section: Chapter 10. Libraries. error.
> Link: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/baselib-error-n.html
> Problem: In the subsection labeled "Bugs", in the fourth sentence, the
> word "error" is incorrectly hyphenated twice. In the last sentence,
> "hard- copy" has a space where there should be none.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 20:48:45 -0400
> From: Chewtoy <chewtoy@netscape.net>
> To: trever@wondious.com
> Subject: [FWD: LSB specification review bug [ #422418 ] Offer to proof-read
> for typos and mispellings]
>
>
> ---------7d31734a5f70cbc37d31734a5f70cbc3
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
> Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!
> http://shopnow.netscape.com/
>
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at
> http://webmail.netscape.com/
>
> ---------7d31734a5f70cbc37d31734a5f70cbc3
> Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Forwarded Msg"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Forwarded Msg"
> Content-Description: Forwarded Msg
>
> X-AOL-UID: 92.5618110
> X-AOL-DATE: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 3:54:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> Return-Path: <cyeoh@samba.org>
> Received: from rly-na04.mail.aol.com (rly-na04.mail.aol.com
> [172.18.151.233]) by air-na01.mail.aol.com (v78_r3.8) with ESMTP; Tue, 12
> Jun 2001 03:54:57 -0400
> Received: from lists.samba.org (samba.sourceforge.net [198.186.203.85]) by
> rly-na04.mail.aol.com (v78_r3.8) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:54:45
> -0400
> Received: by lists.samba.org (Postfix, from userid 1112)
> id 818294D35; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <15141.51522.37762.152520@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:48:18 +1000
> From: Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh@samba.org>
> To: chewtoy@netscape.net
> Subject: LSB specification review bug [ #422418 ] Offer to proof-read for
> typos and mispellings
> X-Mailer: VM 6.92 under Emacs 20.7.2
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your bug report. Its been fixed. As for the offer of typo
> checks if you have a whole bunch of them to report feel free to send
> any to lsb-spec@linuxbase.org or if you prefer to me directly.
>
> The specification document has been updated several times since your
> bug report and we've fixed quite a few, but if you find any more in
> the latest version please let us know.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris.
> --
> yeohc@au1.ibm.com
> IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
> Canberra, Australia
>
> ---------7d31734a5f70cbc37d31734a5f70cbc3--
>
>
> --
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email
> listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
>
>
>
>
Reply to: