16221 2012-03-03 16:04:09 +0000 editorial: "as such" doesn't fit 2012-03-26 18:19:55 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec author view unspecified All All RESOLVED NEEDSINFO P2 normal --- 1 dsb mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 64963 0 dsb 2012-03-03 16:04:09 +0000 In Abstract: "This document is an automated redaction of the full HTML5 specification. As such, the two documents are supposed to agree on normative matters concerning Web authors." The "as such" doesn't quite fit there--the "two documents" are not "an automated redaction" (only one is such a thing as an automated redaction). 66033 1 mike 2012-03-26 03:45:41 +0000 The language in the abstract is verbatim text that I was asked to add by the W3 TAG. I agree it probably could be worded better but I don't think it's worth fiddling with further at this point. 66075 2 dsb 2012-03-26 18:03:25 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > The language in the abstract is verbatim text that I was asked to add by the W3 > TAG. I agree it probably could be worded better but I don't think it's worth > fiddling with further at this point. If you're uncomfortable fixing text someone gave you, then pass this report on to them so they can determine how to fix it and give you the fix to apply. (The wording is broken. If it is left unfixed, it makes the document authors and/or the review process look less than fully literate. I really think it should be fixed.) Daniel 66076 3 mike 2012-03-26 18:19:55 +0000 Please provide some proposed replacement text.