At Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:54:09 -0500, Ray Pelletier wrote: > > > Eric Rescorla wrote: > > >At Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:16:57 -0000, > >Adrian Farrel wrote: > > > > > >>>>In converting what is now RFC 1716 to RFC 1812, which was a HUGE > >>>>editing task, I used a brand new tool that is now a popular grammar > >>>>checker. It complained about "which" vs "that", which is neither here > >>>>nor there, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Well, not quite. "That" is for defining relative clauses, and "which" > >>>for non-defining relative clauses. > >>> > >>> > >>An interesting fact is that the RFC Editor process is particularly hot on > >>"that"/"which". This may be a function of the use of copyeditor function > >>since these folk tend to care about English usage and for them (and for me) > >>it *is* much more than "neither here nor there". It could even have an > >>impact on meaning in an RFC. > >> > >> > > > >This kind of grammar theead usually ends in tears. > > > > > >That said, the CMS is pretty wishy-washy on this: > > > >S 5.42 > >A distinction has traditionally been made between the relative > >pronouns which and that, the latter having been long regarded > >as introducing a restrictive clause and the former, a nonrestrictive > >one. Although the distinction is often disregarded in contemporary > >writing, the careful writer and editor should bear in mind that such > >indifference may result in misreading or uncertainty, as in the > >sentence below. > > > >Ambiguous: > >The report which Marshall had tried to suppress was greeted with > >hilarity. > > > >Which of the following is meant: > >The report, which Marshall had tried to suppress, was greated > >with hilarity. > >or > >The report that Marshally had tried to suppress was greeted > >with hilarity. > > > >When the commas intended to set off a nonrestrictive lcause are > >ommitted, perhaps with the purpose of using which restrictively, > >the reader may well wonder whether the omission was inadvertant. > >Some uncertainty will persist. > > > > > >The MLA handbook is even less prescriptive: > > > >S 3.2.2: > >"Note that some writers prefer to use which to introduce > >norestrictive clauses and that to introduce restrictive > >clauses". > > > > > >Given that the distinction between which and that is not > >universally observed and that our documents are intended > >to be consumed in part by those who are not native > >English speakers, ISTM that any case where the distinction > >between which and that is important to meaning would benefit > >from some rephrasing for increased clarity. > > > > > Perhaps the RFC Editor Style Manual > (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style-manual-08.txt) can > offer some insight here: > > * "which" and "that" should follow the rules: > > o "which" is non-restrictive and is used parenthetically. It > follows a comma and provides non-essential information. > Example: > > "The XYZ Protocol, which is proprietary, may be vulnerable > to session hijacking" > > o "that" is restrictive and introduces information that is > essential to the meaning of the sentence. Example: > > "A protocol that is less robust may be more vulnerable to > session hijacking" Yeah, but the question at hand is whether the RFC Editor *should* be enforcing this style. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf