[MPlayer-DOCS] CVS: main/DOCS/xml/en faq.xml,1.66,1.67

[Guillaume Poirier]

Hi,


On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:08:44 -0500, The Wanderer
<inverseparadox at comcast.net> wrote:
> Guillaume Poirier wrote:

> > I'm really sorry that it sounds so bad, please just consider that I'm
> > not a native, and had more experience on spoken English than written
> > English.
> 
> Yeah, I do understand all of that, and I apologize for the terminology;
> as I said, it was an exaggeration, and sounded rather worse than I
> intended it to. I used the term I did because it had come to mind, and I
> knew from experience that if I tried to come up with some less
> harsh-sounding way to express my immediate reaction I'd sit dithering
> over the keyboard for an unreasonably long time before coming up with
> something that was even less adequate. I tried to soften it a bit, but
> perhaps not as hard as I should have...

No problem.


> > I'm just trying my best to share my experience and problems with
> > MPlayer so other users don't fight against the same problems. I'm
> > grateful that you and others are taking care of the reviewing task. I
> > wish the reviewing could be one on the list on patches I sent rather
> > than on CVS commit (I have no excuse here, as I didn't send a patch
> > beforehand. I'm referring to my contribution to mencoder.xml for
> > which I'd really appreciate if someone could enlighten me regarding
> > my phrasing).
> 
> ...well, let me see. You're referring to the "improving encoding guide"
> patch thread on -docs, right?

That's right.


> (I split -docs CVS messages off into a
> separate folder, so they look like different lists to me.) I didn't
> respond to that because I a) don't know much about encoding in practical
> terms, b) what time I have available has lately been being spent on
> other (albeit not necessarily very practical) things, and c) ... I'm
> sure there was a c), but it's not coming to mind. I may have time to
> have a look at it later in the day, if you like, although from a very
> quick glance I don't see anything objectionable except for my usual
> no-one-else-agrees hyphenation issues...

;-) I'll have a look at those, and looking forward to reading your
feedbacks! ;-)

Regards,

Guillaume