cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml

Giorgos Keramidas keramida at
Wed Jul 16 00:01:34 UTC 2008

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:56:06 +0800, Ganbold <ganbold at> 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-doc mailing list