Re: Re: where to make observations on the PEAR manual?

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Ken Guest wrote: > Just a few +1 comments, inlined... > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Christian Weiske <cweiske@cweiske.de> wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > > > > >>   given my background in technical editing, i have a bad habit of > >> proofreading everything i read. > > We're thankful for every hints. > > We're very appreciative of all documentation provided for all and > any PEAR packages; further proofreading of that documention is > always welcome. Not everyone has technical editing skills and we'd > be happy to have your help in improving the quality of the PEAR > manual. > > And honestly, isn't that a good habit; rather than a bad one? ;-) i've already svn checked out the manual source and i can submit svn diffs against that. a fair bit of what i'd submit might be fairly trivial cleanup and spelling fixes. for example, on the very first page of the manual, "About the manual," PEAR packages are referred to 3 different ways: "PEAR packages", "PEAR Packages" and "PEAR-Packages". in many cases, it's things like that that could be made more consistent manual-wide (i assume that "PEAR packages" would be the syntactically correct wording.) i'm guessing i should move this discussion and submit diffs to the doc list, yes? no sense sucking up bandwidth here. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday ========================================================================