Re: Possible typos
Russ Allbery <[email protected]> Mon, 25 May 2009 17:30:12 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.usenet.format |
|---|---|
| Organization | The Eyrie |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Julien ÉLIE <[email protected]> writes: > Other typos: > > In 4.3: > The content of the application/news-groupinfo body part is defined as: > > It is application/news-checkgroups! Thanks, fixed. > In both 4.3 and 5.2.1.1, could it be said that in the examples, spaces > are used in newsgroups descriptions but that they are in fact tabs? Added. > In 5.2.3, as for a checkgroups control message: > > It requests a news server update its valid newsgroup list for that > hierarchy to include the groups specified, remove any groups not > specified, and update group descriptions to match those given in > the checkgroups control message. > > Could it be said "and update group descriptions as well as moderation > status to match those..."? Yes, good idea. Done. > In 5.3: > > The cancel control message requests that a target article be withdrawn > from circulation and access. > > In order to be consistent with the previous paragraphs, "that" should > not be added here after "requests" :) The RFC Editor apparently has their own style for this, and thats were added and changed all over the document for publication. I'm leaving all of that alone, since I have no strong opinions. :) > By the way, why does "Supersedes" always begin with a capital? When > we do not speak about the header, it should be a lower-case letter > shouldn't it? For instance in 3.4, "which cancels or Supersedes > another article". The RFC Editor noticed that too and lowercased it. I added a parenthetical reference to the Supersedes header field, which is what I was trying to reference in too subtle of a way. > In 6.1: > > Cancel control messages are not required to have the same Newsgroups > header field as the messages they are cancelling and, since they are > sometimes processed before the original message is received, it may not > be possible to check that they do. > > "to check what they do"? "to check that"? Reworded, thanks. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>