cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security
chapter.sgml
Giorgos Keramidas
keramida at ceid.upatras.gr
Wed Jul 16 00:01:34 UTC 2008
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:56:06 +0800, Ganbold <ganbold at micom.mng.net> wrote:
> Remko Lodder wrote:
>> On Mon, July 14, 2008 10:08 am, Ganbold wrote:
>>> Tom Rhodes wrote:
>>>> Revision Changes Path
>>>> 1.324 +293 -829 doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security/chapter.sgml
>>>
>>> Tom,
>>> I think you meant:
>>>
>>> <para>At this point, both networks should be available and
>>> seem to be part of the same network. Most likely both
>>> networks are protected by a firewall, as they should be. To
>>> - allow traffic to flow between them, rules need to be added
>>> + allow traffic flow between them, rules need to be added
>>
>> I think the current line is right. "Traffic to flow" means that it "can
>> happen", traffic flow means that it happends...
>
> You are right, probably I have just misunderstood the whole sentence's
> meaning while translating :)
In a way, both 'versions' are right. They carry slightly different
nuances, but the core meaning is the same.
In ``to allow traffic to flow between them'', the sentence emphasizes
traffic's ability `to flow' between the networks. In `to allow traffic
flow', the term `traffic flow' becomes a compound noun[1]; one whose
existence signals something we are interested in.
Ultimately, it's a matter of the author's writing style, and of the
precise meaning he/she wants to convey. In our case, I don't think it's
worth worrying a lot about :)
More information about the cvs-all
mailing list