[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev dev.16 patch 5 corrected

From: Henry Nelson
Subject: Re: lynx-dev dev.16 patch 5 corrected
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:01:47 +0900 (JST)

> > confess, although you may already know that, that I am the one who insisted
> > on Fote's analysis being the default -- solely on the basis of, however 
> > remote,
> > "better safe than sorry."
> Just to make my standpoint clear, not to start an argument: "better
> safe than sorry" could cut both ways, depending on who was right on
> the technical points, and in my opinion is an argument for making
> --enable-internal-links the default.  But I will leave it at that and

Perhaps, then, emphasis of "prevent" is in order.  (I debated, but left
it not; see below.)

> therefore dump the problem on the user (installer) - that was intentional,
> since it reflects what is the case IMO.

I understood that, and that is why I thought your rewriting was a big

> >         to interpret URL-references as suggested by RFC 2396, and to prevent

You or Tom might emphasize that "prevent," e.g., "*prevent*," or word it
more strongly: "not allow" or "block."  I do hope you will agree with
"attempts to" over categorical expressions, however.

> >         alternate opinion predicts that the feature could actually result in
> A nit: should "predicts" be "has predicted"?  I don't really care though.

My main purpose in making the suggestion was to depersonify the subjects,
but keep the active voice when possible.  Using "predict" in the present
tense means that the "alternate opinion" has not yet been [unequivocally]
refuted (proven wrong), and also hints to the reader why the default is the
way it is.  Admittedly my biased opinion since Fote never gave us an
example that we [=users] could empirically test to see his point.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]