[emacs-berlin] Fwd: Looking for a few expert proof-readers for the Emacs 26 Manual

[Stefan Kamphausen]

Hi Berlin Emacsers,


That's a lot to digest. Please allow me to add some comments.

* I'd never just use non-free software and sell the results as my own.
That'd not give the FSF the credit it deserves. That's why I asked them
first.

* If people are fine with the results of languagetool, that's a cool way to
go. It would need someone else than me to do it, though.

* Our software goes way beyond spell and grammar checking. John Wiegley
asked for "the eyes of both a general reader (who
can spot confusing language) and [...]". This is part of what we do. I
don't know any software that can proof-read for technical correctness,
either.

Finally, the effort required to make this work is on the scale of a few
days for project setup alone. It's not a Just Do It job. I'd like to define
the terminology, too. Being able to check for deprecated or unsuitable
terms could also help making the Emacs manual easier to read. At least,
that's my very humble opinion.

Anyhow, still waiting for John to come back. If he does at all.


Kind regards,
stefan

2018-02-02 11:42 GMT+01:00 Michael Albinus <michael.albinus at gmx.de>:

> "Max(☭)" <suraev at alumni.ntnu.no> writes:
>
> > What's the point of using proprietary software if there's already an
> > open source alternative?
>
> Well, maybe the discussion goes into the wrong direction. Spell-checking
> is part of the proof-reading, but the major target of this action is to
> check technical correctness.
>
> I suppose there's no tool yet which does it for Emacs manuals :-)
>
> Best regards, Michael.
> _______________________________________________
> emacs-berlin mailing list
> emacs-berlin at emacs-berlin.org
> https://mailb.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-berlin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailb.org/pipermail/emacs-berlin/attachments/20180202/40743218/attachment.html>