[NUT-devel] redundant documents in the repository

[Måns Rullgård]

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 02:10:02PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:34:07PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 11:48:52AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:51:19AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:20:26AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:58:55AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:43:39AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 10:22:11PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > > > > > > > In the repository we have 
>> > > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > > docs/oggless-xiph-codecs.txt
>> > > > > > > > src/trunk/docs/draft-xiph-oggless-00.xml
>> > > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > > The former was written by Michael, the latter by Alex.  What's it going
>> > > > > > > > to be?
>> > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/Oggless
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Does this mean we can remove both documents from our repository because
>> > > > > > the information has found a better place?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > I think so, but maybe wait a day to see if anyone disagrees.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Also you should update the link on http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/Oggless
>> > > > so it points to the last revision before the removial or the link will 
>> > > > break.
>> > > 
>> > > I don't have an account on that wiki and I cannot create one.  Could you
>> > > please update the link?  This is the link to use:
>> > > 
>> > > http://svn.mplayerhq.hu/nut/docs/oggless-xiph-codecs.txt?view=log&pathrev=577
>> > 
>> > done
>> 
>> I managed to create an account on that wiki in the meantime, but thanks
>> anyway.
>> 
>> You may wish to review my edits to the document, I did my usual
>> spelling/wording fixes, parts of it were a bit hard to understand due to
>> lack of punctuation.
>> 
>> What are you trying to express with the term "separatable" in the
>> sentence "container packet here means the smallest separatable data unit
>> in the container"?  It is not an English word AFAIK.
>
> Well google has 12800 matches for it. My dictionary contains it, in my own
> handwriting. So i think theres no problem here. You can also use the archaic
> spelling of it, that is separable. If thou preferst.

"Separable" is the correct word; there is nothing archaic about it.
"Separatable" is not in any dictionary that I own.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans at mansr.com