<cc list shortened> On Feb 11, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > 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. > But then shouldn't the question be whether the style manual should be changed ? By the way, those reports of me suppressing reports are nothing more than scurrilous rumors, which should be suppressed. Regards Marshall > -Ekr > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf