[rfc-i] use cases for page breaking hints, Re: Update on the plain text thread(s)

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Mon Jun 30 10:07:33 PDT 2014


Nonsense. You bring it up when discussing real documents. Just as you would any other style issue. I wouldn't write wouldn't in a RFC, I'd write would not. If you see wouldn't in an ID I've written, feel free to suggest changing it. But in something like a semi-conversational email, wouldn't is fine. Same here.

(I don't agree with your preferences here in a real RFC. But if you find a he or his in one of mine, let me know. I prefer formulations that avoid third person pronouns and adjectives altogether.)

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Information Assurance Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove at baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687


-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon at fugue.com] 
Sent: 30 June 2014 16:12
To: dcrocker at bbiw.net
Cc: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org; Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] use cases for page breaking hints, Re: Update on the plain text thread(s)

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

On Jun 30, 2014, at 10:45 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> For example, it is common for politically correct usage to 
> artificially say "she" where "he" has been common.  It would have been 
> especially odd for you to have posted a similar challenge to that 
> usage, even though it is an equally 'biased' term.

I probably would not hassle someone who uses the generic she because I don't see it as a systemic problem, but I find its use equally disturbing.   I agree with you that the singular they is the right choice, although I will also use s/he where it seems to scan better.

I also agree that bringing this up is a distraction, but either one brings it up in the context in which it occurs, or one endures it silently.   Bringing it up in some other context is ineffective, since at that point it's purely theoretical.


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list