Re: Patch: Zero detected HTML errors

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 11:57:06 -0400
Jorge Arellano Cid <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 01:56:14PM +0100, Nick Warne wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:13:59 -0400
> > Jorge Arellano Cid <[email protected]> wrote:
> >   
> > >   OK, let's take a look at this one.
> > > 
> > >   The idea is to inform that the  bug meter detected zero HTML
> > > errors, not that the doc is perfect (because the bug meter checks
> > > a subset of the syntax/grammar legalese).
> > > 
> > >   How is that best expressed in english?
> > >   
> > > > -      a_Dialog_msg("Dillo: Valid HTML!", "Zero detected HTML
> > > > errors!");
> > > > +      a_Dialog_msg("Dillo: Valid HTML!", "Detected no HTML
> > > > errors!");    
> > 
> > Well, lets suppose that someone is called 'Zero'.
> > 
> > "Zero detected HTML errors!"
> > 
> > implies that he/she detected errors!  
> 
>   Thanks. This makes it clear to me.
> 
> > 
> > What about: "Could not detect any HTML errors!"
> > 
> > which then implies that the current bug meter thinks it's OK (but
> > as we know, there _still_ may be HTML errors.  
> 
>   One more question, why not?
> 
>     1. "No HTML errors detected!" or
> 
>     2. "Zero HTML errors detected!" or
> 
>     3. "Detected zero HTML errors!"
> 
> 
>   ** If I choose by replacing pronouns I'd have:
> 
>     1. "He" detected!
>     2. "He" detected!
>     3. Dtected him!
> 
>   I'd choose 3.- as 1.- and 2.- are wrong. Am I right?

OK, why not make it what it is:

"Dillo Bug meter: no HTML errors detected"

and also:

"Dillo Bug meter: HTML errors detected"

Pretty trivial stuff, but at least the viewer gets what you see.

Nick
-- 
Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward?  That's the trouble with
time travel, you never can tell."
		-- Doctor Who "Androids of Tara"