<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Geoffrey Garen wrote:<br>
><br>
> 1.4<br>
> "when not qualified to explicitly refer"<br>
> when not qualified explicitly to refer<br>
> (split infinitive)<br>
<br>
I prefer the current text.</blockquote><div><br>How about "when not qualified to refer explicitly" ?<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> <a href="http://3.3.3.1" target="_blank">3.3.3.1</a><br>
><br>
> "For instance, the script elements is allowed inside head elements"<br>
> For instance, the script element is allowed inside the head element<br>
> (typo)<br>
<br>
I don't understand the mistake.</blockquote><div><br>Noun/verb plurality agreement error. "elements is allowed" should either be "element is allowed" or "elements are allowed".<br> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> 8.2.1<br>
> "do not have to actually create a DOM Document object"<br>
> do not actually have to create a DOM Document object<br>
> (split infinitive)<br>
<br>
I prefer the split version.</blockquote></div><br>FWIW I prefer the non-split version as well. But I am a grammar Nazi :)<br><br>PK<br>