Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 00:08:35 -0700 From: Hiten Pandya <hmp@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: des@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks chapter.sgml Message-ID: <20030507070835.GA71586@perrin.int.nxad.com> In-Reply-To: <20030506225709.T5620@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <200305051936.h45JaAc4099544@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030506224205.J5620@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030507014339.2e467c3a.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <20030506225709.T5620@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:00:18PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > Actually, and according to my dictionary, irrelevant is more correct > > here. > > That wasn't my actual question. :) Let me rephrase. "Given that these two > words basically mean the same thing in context, what was the overwhelming > necessity of this change?" If the reason was, "To make the meaning > slightly more accurate," then we can argue the merits based on that... I'm > just curious. Two reasons: a) Use simple english which everyone can understand. Many people from the far east etc do not understand such words, while they can undersand ``useless'' or ''irrelevant''. This is also the same reason for my "automatic to automagic" change. b) The 'insignificant' meaning of the word `moot' is secondary, while it's primary meaning is the opposite I have already discussed this change with my mentor, and he asked me the same question. Hope that helps. Cheers. -- Hiten (hmp@FreeBSD.ORG)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030507070835.GA71586>