Am 15.02.22 um 23:46 schrieb brian m. carlson: > On 2022-02-15 at 07:05:44, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> Sorry, I don't find this description clear at all due to the many 'or's >> and 'and's and no indication which parts belong together. The original >> text was clear (but, of course, not helpful if it was wrong). >> >> I suggest to rewrite the paragraph into format with bullet points: >> >> ... only if one of the following is true: >> >> - is set and foo or bar >> - is unspecified and either >> - this >> - or that >> - is set to auto but not... >> >> or something along the lines. I can't propose actual text because I have >> no clue what the truth is. > > Unfortunately, the fact is that this behaviour is complicated. I can > try a reroll with a bulleted list, though. Just so you know where my confusion arises from: Your updated text has the structure (as I read it) if ... set or unspecified or if auto then ... detected ... and LF It is unclear whether the 'then' conditions apply only to 'if auto'. Even if the additional 'if' in the middle makes me think that the 'then's apply only to the 'auto' case, it is sufficently vage because in my mental model there is not much difference between an 'unset' and a set-to-'auto' attribute, and I wonder why the 'then's should not apply to the 'unset' case as well. Moreover, after re-reading the text, I notice that text may be read as "this attribute has an effect only if <conditions>" where <conditions> basically means "always except for when the 'if auto' case is not met", right? Would it perhaps be better to write "has no effect if <very specific condition>"? -- Hannes
