On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:31:31PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote: > On 01/24/2018 10:25 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: [...] > > docs/formatdomain.html.in | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > > > When built, formatted, rendered, and read in a browser one gets in one > long line: [...] > So I think wrapping your change with <p> ... </p> will at least make it > look like a separate paragraph within the <feature> element description. Ah, good catch. Fixed in v3. [...] > > + Individual CPU feature names can be specified as part of the > > Since the name attribute is required, rather than "can be" or "should > be" (as Eduardo suggested), I think perhaps "features names are > specified using the required <code>name</name> attribute." I went with your above wording in v3. > or > > "The required <code>name</code> attribute is used specify each desired > CPU feature." > > (because we state initially "The cpu element can contain zero or more > elements..."). > > > + <code>name</code> attribute. For example, to explicitly specify > > s/specify/require I used the verb 'specify' to indicate that there is an _action_ to be taken. To my non-native ears: "to explicitly require" sounds slightly odd when asking to take an action. But I'll defer to your native tounge intuition. > Thoughts? I can make the adjustment before pushing if desired. Thanks for the review. Sending a v3; feel free to adjust it as you see fit. -- /kashyap -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
