On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Nick Simicich wrote:
> >""" In particular, if nothing is explicitly specified, then that
> >MUST be interpreted as equivalent to the following:
(snip)
> I have a word choice issue..
>
> >In particular, if nothing is explicitly specified, then the
> >interpretation MUST be the following:
>
> "then that" is not reasonable English, as there is no antecedent
> for that in this case. Maybe the antecedent would become
> apparent if there were more context, but sentences in RFCs tend
> to get misinterpreted if they can't stand on their own.
As an erstwhile professional grammarian, I concur. There's
an alternative solution: make it "then that fact means" -- but
Nick's is better, especially in this case.
--
Beartooth the Stubborn <karhunhammas (at) lserv.com>, double retiree,
linux hatchling w/ RH 7.2; ssh'd (DSL) to pine 4.43 on ISP's SunOS 5.8;
Opera 6.02, Pan 0.11.2, Galeon 1.2.5, & Mozilla 1.0
Neo-Redneck, Weird by Nature -- and with Gusto!
References:
|
|
