On 21-Aug-23 08:13, Rob Sayre wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 12:09 PM Martin J. Dürst <duerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:duerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> So, here you have a questionable preposition. These documents all have
> them, and the documents seem to have quality issues as a result.
Can you explain what's questionable about this proposition?
I find the documents a bit difficult to read, and I wrote "preposition". This kind of problem:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/prepositional-phrase/
Using their examples:
"Why was the road crossed by the chicken?"
vs
"Why did the chicken cross the road?"
I find the more online-only WGs produce text with these issues more often.
Please provide statistics to prove that. I ask because in my experience,
statements that create ambiguity are overwhelmingly likely to be detected
during careful document reviews rather than in any form of meeting.
Therefore the question of *how* a WG chooses to meet seems to be quite
irrelevant.
Getting back to the sentence you quoted:
"Sometimes language tags are used to indicate additional language
attributes of content."
I am at a loss to see why either the passive tense or the preposition
"to" has any real impact. I agree, if this is what you mean, that
"Sometimes language tags indicate additional language attributes of content."
would have been sufficient.
The sentence is made potentially ambiguous by "sometimes" and
"additional". If the next few sentences in the document don't give
details of *when* additional attributes are allowed, and *what*
those attributes may be, then there is a problem. This is a good
example of a point that will be detected during a quiet review of
a document, not during a meeting, whether interim or plenary, in
person or on line.
Brian
