Eric, I believe the answer is "yes." In an interesting twist on (what I think was your own argument), allowing missuse of the English language does not help the people for whom it is not their first language. In addition, allowing abuse of grammar rules in cases that don't matter as much is not a good idea for those people that don't understand why they don't matter as much in those cases. Also, there are better examples of where the use of the wrong choice is more noticeably incorrect. The style manual is correct, and it makes sense for the RFC Editor to encourage correctness, hence the RFC editor is at least not incorrect in pointing this out. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Eric Rescorla > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 4:12 PM > To: Ray Pelletier > Cc: ietf; IAOC; Fred Baker; Adrian Farrel > Subject: Re: [IAOC] RFC Editor costs - Proofreading (was Re: > Myview of theIAOC Meeting Selection Guidelines) > > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf