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.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am 19. November 2024 23:28:37 MEZ schrieb Lothar Rubusch > <l.rubu...@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?
