Patch: Zero detected HTML errors
Hi Devs, The sentence (Dillo message): Zero detected HTML errors! Is a bit contrived in English - this small patch (attached) changes it to more legal/legible English usage. Regards, 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"
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:43:20 +0100 Nick Warne <nick at linicks.net> wrote:
Hi Devs,
The sentence (Dillo message):
Zero detected HTML errors!
Is a bit contrived in English - this small patch (attached) changes it to more legal/legible English usage.
No replies or nacks/acks. Am I doing something wrong? 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"
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:23:09PM +0100, Nick Warne wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:43:20 +0100 Nick Warne <nick at linicks.net> wrote:
Hi Devs,
The sentence (Dillo message):
Zero detected HTML errors!
Is a bit contrived in English - this small patch (attached) changes it to more legal/legible English usage.
No replies or nacks/acks.
Just be patient. The devs work on a spare time basis, and tend to allocate their time based on priorities. If somebody posts a patch/comment and it goes unanswered for some time, it's customary to "bump" (i.e. repost, ask again), just in case it got forgotten in the pile of work. It works the same in most projects. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 03:43:20PM +0100, Nick Warne wrote:
Hi Devs,
The sentence (Dillo message):
Zero detected HTML errors!
Is a bit contrived in English - this small patch (attached) changes it to more legal/legible English usage.
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!");
-- Cheers Jorge.-
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! 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. 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"
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? -- Cheers Jorge.-
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"
participants (2)
-
jcid＠dillo.org -
nick＠linicks.net