[MPlayer-DOCS] CVS: main/DOCS/xml/en encoding-guide.xml, 1.36, 1.37

[The Wanderer]

On 12/27/2005 06:58 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 10:35:00AM +0100, Guillaume Poirier CVS wrote:
> 
>> +  Choosing the video codec to use depends on several factors, some of
>> +  which widely depend on personal taste and technical constraints.
> 
> s/widely depend/depend/ IMO at least

If not, then at the very least "widely" is almost certainly not the
correct word to use. I'll think about it... the correct term here is
somewhat obscure, at least in terms of how readily it springs to mind.

>> +  Therefore, you cannot be wrong
>> +  by choosing MPEG-4 AVC codecs like
> 
>   Therefore, you cannot go wrong choosing
> 
> or
> 
>   Therefore, you cannot go wrong when choosing

I pointed out this one myself, but apparently not clearly enough.

>> +  What's more, beginning to use a new codec requires that you spend some
>> +  time becoming familiar with its available options, so that you know what
> 
> IMO there are no unavailable options, so I'd drop 'available' here.

I rephrased this one extensively - the phrasing was intended to mean
"the options it has available to be used". Perhaps "the options it
provides" instead of "its available options"?

>> +  (beware: usually, not all MPEG-4 ASP features are supported).
> 
> Capitalize both before and after the colon.

I disagree at least about the former, because this parenthetical comment
is in the middle of a sentence. If you had a construction of the form
"Most A are X, but (look out) some are Y instead", you wouldn't want to
capitalize "Look out", would you?

>> +  or Google around for more information.
> 
> Google is used as a verb here, so no capitalization.

Not necessarily - it can be valid to capitalize it even in that form.
I'll yield to your decision on the matter, however, since you do seem to
be the one 'in charge'.

>> +  settings of the video codec (which doesn't mean you should not experiment
> 
> Avoid short forms, some more are used in the text.

I noticed a number of these in my commenting run - if I'd realized it
was that important, I'd have pointed them out. I thought that the
restriction on short forms applied primarily or solely to the man page,
and that the rest of the documentation - the topic-specific guides in
particular - was allowed to be somewhat more conversational?

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.