Re: AD review: draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-03

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

 



idiomatic text should be avoided in technical writing. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Eddie Kohler
> Sent: 04 March 2011 15:27
> To: Gerrit Renker
> Cc: dccp@xxxxxxxx group
> Subject: Re:  AD review: draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-03
> 
> Hi Gerrit,
> 
> Lars is right, "cannot" is far more idiomatic, in written or 
> spoken text.
> 
> http://www.drgrammar.org/frequently-asked-questions#30
> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/cannot.html
> 
> Eddie
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/4/11 3:54 AM, Gerrit Renker wrote:
> > Lars, -
> > |>     than 4 can not be determined: such samples have to 
> be discarded.
> > |
> > |   Nit: s/can not/cannot/
> > |
> > I would like to ask if we could keep it as it is, the 
> suggestion confuses me:
> > can is a verb, not the negation, cannot is spoken language, the 
> > document is written text. I actually replace everywhere I 
> see this the 
> > other way around, since I read somewhere that cannot in 
> written text 
> > is not considered good style. If you can give a rule for 
> the above, I 
> > am willing to be educated on the matter.
> 


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux DCCP]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [DDR & Rambus]

  Powered by Linux