idiomatic text should be avoided in technical writing.
> -----Original Message----- > From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Eddie Kohler > Sent: 04 March 2011 15:27 > To: Gerrit Renker > Cc: dccp@ietf.org group > Subject: Re: [dccp] AD review: draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-03 > > Hi Gerrit, > > Lars is right, "cannot" is far more idiomatic, in written or > spoken text. > > http://www.drgrammar.org/frequently-asked-questions#30 > http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/cannot.html > > Eddie > > > > On 3/4/11 3:54 AM, Gerrit Renker wrote: > > Lars, - > > |> than 4 can not be determined: such samples have to > be discarded. > > | > > | Nit: s/can not/cannot/ > > | > > I would like to ask if we could keep it as it is, the > suggestion confuses me: > > can is a verb, not the negation, cannot is spoken language, the > > document is written text. I actually replace everywhere I > see this the > > other way around, since I read somewhere that cannot in > written text > > is not considered good style. If you can give a rule for > the above, I > > am willing to be educated on the matter. >
