Hi, thank you all! This is outstanding, such a fast feedback! As I also just ran a tool over the texts, adjusted formatting and reverted/accepted some changes manually to my knowledge (I'm not a native speaker). Please, could you clarify the following?
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:02 AM Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
Am 19. November 2024 23:28:37 MEZ schrieb Lothar Rubusch l.rubusch@gmail.com:
[...]
Note that some entries are subclasses of others, using and extending their -features to produce new behaviours. +features to produce new behaviors.
The project once used to prefer British English.
So, I shall revert to the original rather British i.e. "behaviour" and "rationalise" wording, correct?
[...]
-Entry: alternates-fdt: Entry that generates alternative sections for each devicetree provided +Entry: alternates-fdt: Entry that generates alternative sections for each device-tree provided
'Devicetree' is a frequently used spelling variant, cf. https://www.devicetree.org/ .
Since I found "device tree", "devicetree" and "device-tree", could you please advice me, what is the preferred term here?
[...]
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ icons, for example. For verified boot it could be used for each part of the image (e.g. separate FIPs for A and B) but cannot describe the whole firmware image. As with FMAP there is no hierarchy defined, although FMAP works around this by having 'section' areas which encompass others. A -similar workaround would be possible with FIP but is not currently defined. +similar workaround would be possible with FIP but it is not currently defined.
Both versions seem to be correct English.
I understand. My tool here claimed to do it a bit more formal. I have no idea, to be honest. Shall I revert it and better leave as is?