Bug 29842

>Number:         29842
>Category:       docs
>Synopsis:       Stilted language and improper puncuation in Dialup 
firewalling with FreeBSD article
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    freebsd-doc
>State:          open
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Aug 17 20:10:01 PDT 2001
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Robert Sowders
>Release:        FreeBSD 4.3-STABLE i386
>Organization:
United States Geological Survey 
>Environment:
System: FreeBSD www-1.wr.usgs.gov 4.3-STABLE FreeBSD 4.3-STABLE #0: Thu Jul 12 
01:06:31 PDT 2001 root@www-1.wr.usgs.gov:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/WWW6 i386


	
>Description:
The article Dialup Firewalling with FreeBSD contains some stilted language, 
poor grammer, and a few punctuation errors.  Nothing too glaring, but thought 
I would submit this fix anyway.  Unified diff follows.
	
>How-To-Repeat:
	
>Fix:

<snip>
 
-    <para>Now, let's look at a sample firewall file, and we'll detail
-      everything in it. </para>
+    <para>Now, let's look at a sample firewall file, that is commented 
nicely.                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
^^^^^^                                                    
+      </para>
 




Since "that" as a relative pronoun is used in *defining* relative clauses, I 
am missing the intended sense of the sentence.

AFAICS:
1) Either "that" is a demonstrative pronoun (this, that; these, those);
2) Or you mean "[...] a sample firewall file that is commented nicely" (N.B. 
NO comma). 

If interpretation 1) holds, I am not quite sure whether the sentence is fully 
correct; if 2) holds, the [resulting] sentence sounds a little curious to me 
(or is it just me?:-))

I was thinking about something like "[...] a nicely and extensively commented 
sample firewall", thus removing the secondary clause. 

Another possibility might be "[...] a sample firewall. Each rule in this 
example is nicely [and extensively] commented."

Or am I simply missing something?

-- Salvo

Comment 2 dd 2001-08-30 12:04:13 UTC

State Changed
From-To: open->closed

Patch applied, thanks.  In the future, please remember to state which 
article the patch applies to!