Hi -
On 2023-08-20 1:54 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 1:47 PM Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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>
<mailto: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/
<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 don't think this is something that can be proved.
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.
It's still wrong, as the introductory clause needs a comma.
"Sometimes, language tags indicate additional language attributes of
content."
This disambiguates occasional language tags from purposes language tags
can be used for.
Better:
"Language tags can indicate additional language attributes of content."
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.
But I meant that the groups that are online-only seem to use the passive
voice too much. I'm not sure it's possible to prove.
thanks,
Rob
The fact that the WG avoided this level of lily-gilding (with no
conceivable impact on interoperability) reassures me that the decision
to not meet in person was the correct one.
Randy
