----- Original Message ----- From: "John Levine" <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 6:31 PM > >I'm more concerned with reading and writing. > > I still don't understand what this is supposed to mean in practice. > > There have been I-D's that desperately needed the help of a competent > English speaker to rewrite parts where the language was so fractured > that I couldn't figure it out. In my experience, people with poor > English skills who come to the IETF are doing the best they can, so > this suggests that if you (the general you) see a draft of interest > with language problems, it would be a good idea to offer to edit or > coauthor it. How? (seriously) I have tried editing the xml and get a sense of why it can be so hard to write coherent English in that markup language. I have tried editing the text in the direction I think that it should go but then it is unclear what changes I am suggesting. I have tried my own markup /*rgurnggkjik/regurgitate?/ which I understand but others do not:-( I want the sort of tool that was a commonplace when programming decades ago, so that the changes are apparent, are temporary but can be selectively made permanent by the editor - or not as the case may be - and are faultlessly incorporated into the xml when made permanent. Any ideas? Tom Petch p.s. oh yes, it must run on Windows. > I don't really any WG sessions being badly impaired by poor speakers > although there have certainly been presentations I wouldn't have been > able to follow if the speaker didn't have slides, and there are plenty > of WGs whose meetings I've never attended. Is there a concrete > suggestion here? > > R's, > John