At Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:11:08 -0000, Adrian Farrel wrote: At Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:11:08 -0000, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > > This kind of grammar theead usually ends in tears. > > Too right. > And, no doubt, we are shortly to be thoroughly flamed for being off-topic. > > I think what it points out is that, those of us who do not know enough about > grammar, should not presume to suggest that fixes to grammar are > unimportant. Which is why I cited the two standard style manuals, the CMS, and the MLA handbook. > You might go to Strunk and White for a good and clear view of the topic > since this work is particular to the American usage that we are required to > turn out our RFCs in. > > "That" is the defining, or restrictive, pronoun, "which" the nondefining, or > nonrestrictive... And yet the MLA doesn't endorse this rule and the CMS only barely does. I appreciate that this is a rule that used to be strictly enforced but now, like split infinitives, it is mostly an opportunity for pedantry. > If you have time, you should read Fowler's essayon the topic and extensive > examples (prefering an old edition since modern editors have tended to > remove his "ramblings" in later editions). He gives a simple sentence that > should clearly illustrate the difference... > > I always buy his books that/which have influenced me greatly. > Buy them all - "which" > Buy a subset - "that" As I said in my original message: if your sentence relies on this distinction to be unambigous, you should rewrite it to remove the that/which ambiguity. > The defined protocol error conditions which/that are carried in the Notify > message are for information only and MUST NOT cause any change in the > processing rules. > > "which" - all defined protocol error conditions are for information only, > they are carried in the Notify message. > > "that" - the protocol error conditions carried in the Notify message are for > information only, but there may be other error conditions. Again, these sentences should be written without the ambiguity. In fact, in this particular case you've only managed to induce it by removing the commas which should ordinarily surround the nonrestrictive clause. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf