On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 11:57:06 -0400 Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid at dillo.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 01:56:14PM +0100, Nick Warne wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:13:59 -0400 Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid at dillo.org> wrote:
OK, let's take a look at this one.
The idea is to inform that the bug meter detected zero HTML errors, not that the doc is perfect (because the bug meter checks a subset of the syntax/grammar legalese).
How is that best expressed in english?
- a_Dialog_msg("Dillo: Valid HTML!", "Zero detected HTML errors!"); + a_Dialog_msg("Dillo: Valid HTML!", "Detected no HTML errors!");
Well, lets suppose that someone is called 'Zero'.
"Zero detected HTML errors!"
implies that he/she detected errors!
Thanks. This makes it clear to me.
What about: "Could not detect any HTML errors!"
which then implies that the current bug meter thinks it's OK (but as we know, there _still_ may be HTML errors.
One more question, why not?
1. "No HTML errors detected!" or
2. "Zero HTML errors detected!" or
3. "Detected zero HTML errors!"
** If I choose by replacing pronouns I'd have:
1. "He" detected! 2. "He" detected! 3. Dtected him!
I'd choose 3.- as 1.- and 2.- are wrong. Am I right?
OK, why not make it what it is: "Dillo Bug meter: no HTML errors detected" and also: "Dillo Bug meter: HTML errors detected" Pretty trivial stuff, but at least the viewer gets what you see. Nick -- Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward? That's the trouble with time travel, you never can tell." -- Doctor Who "Androids of Tara"