[MPlayer-DOCS] CVS: main/DOCS/xml/en mencoder.xml,1.64,1.65

[Guillaume POIRIER]

Le mercredi 18 mai 2005 à 17:12 -0400, The Wanderer a écrit :
> Diego Biurrun wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 07:36:53PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 06:38:09PM +0200, Guillaume POIRIER wrote:
> 
> >>> Seems good to me... the problem is that I'm not even sure of my
> >>> competence to comment on such proposition, as my English is not
> >>> so good, and that all those changes on Rich's original text might
> >>> pervert the original meaning.
> >>> 
> >>> Rich, what do you think?
> >> 
> >> The change is wrong. "for which it should be shown" is connected to
> >> the world "fields", and the meaning changes if you put it after
> >> "header of each frame". If you want you could use:
> >> 
> >> "and store the number of fields for which each frame should be
> >> shown in its [respective] header"
> >> 
> >> Personally I like the original wording best but I'm not particular.
> > 
> > I'm completely confused now.  This is what we have ATM:
> > 
> >   The MPEG-2 standard used on DVD and digital TV provides a way to both
> >   encode the original progressive frames and store in the header of
> >   each frame the number of fields for which it should be shown.
> > 
> > This sentence is confusing, as the discussion we're having shows.  Is
> > it correct?  The last "it" is not good since it is unclear what it
> > stands for.
> 
> I don't think the antecedent is unclear (although I may be biased, since
> I was the one who wrote that phrasing); the most recent non-plural noun,
> thus the most recent for which "it" would be a valid pronoun, is
> "frame", which unless I'm much mistaken is what is being displayed for
> multiple fields. If you want to completely eliminate the ambiguity you
> could just say "that frame" instead, but I've been specifically trying
> to avoid things like that, since it reads a little clunkily to me...
> 
> > Here is the alternative I propose:
> > 
> >   The MPEG-2 standard used on DVD and digital TV provides a way both to
> >   encode the original progressive frames and to store the number of
> >   fields for which a frame should be shown in the frame header.
> > 
> > Correct?  Less confusing?
> 
> That looks to me as if it has the same meaning as I was shooting for,
> except that (for the sake of complete exactitude) I would probably say
> "in the header of that frame" (and/or "for which each frame should be
> shown"); that probably reads a little too clumsily, however, so I might
> not insist on it.

I'm completely lost with all those sentence rephrasing... all of them
make sense to me. Given my crappy English, I'm not gonna touch this
sentence again as I'm sure I won't do it any good. Anyone who feels like
this needs to be changed is free to go ahead and change it.

Guillaume