On Mon Feb 11 23:14:35 2008, Eric Gray wrote: > One clear way to divide people into two groups, however, is to > distinguish those who use language primarily with an intent to > convey > content (i.e. to communicate), and those who mostly use a language > for some other purpose. Without going into what such other purposes > might be, Hithertofore, I have remained silent on this issue, in trepidation of questioning the wherefore of grammar, whence surely clarity comes forth. Yet one observes herein a contrary group of folk who would busy themselves more with language than content; hence, I should think, the concerns of many, who would question whether the RFC Editor's employment of copy editors is a dalliance mindful of grammar, or clarity, at the forefront. Naturally, all present value clarity of content; all value the use of grammar whence this derives - to simply strike a line through one's rules of English and ignore the learned experts who would advise us would be obviously foolish; however one must be mindful that the acme of language is perfection of communication; not that of grammar. Yet grammar remains the wellspring of clarity - ambiguity festers in the cracks of one's application thereof, but none of us could ingenuously claim ourselves experts in that field. Thus abetment is required from professionals whom the RFC Editor has retained for this purpose. One therefore hopes that the RFC Editor would use copy editors to provide clarity through grammar, and furthermore that any changes resultant are subject to approval by the author. Since this does indeed appear to be the case, one must assume that for those who have concerns, these concerns are addressed to their satisfaction, and henceforth this list might return to whatever pressing subject previously occupied it, which will no doubt remain as elucidating as the regnant matter. A final point worth raising is that those concerned with whether the benefit outweighs the cost might observe the differences between final draft and published RFC; trivial to do, and it would no doubt enlighten those who are concerned with the cost. Without this action, one must assume that arguments are based on opinion, and not fact, which is concerning - and highly irregular for this august list, as I hardly need mention. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxx - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf