Re: Patch to correct a little wording mistake

Dan Williams wrote:
> The problem with "interrupted" is that it implies that the connection
> will come back of it's own accord, or that you were always meant to be
> connected but that it just dropped out for a short period, which
> definitely isn't the case.  We need something that implies that you have
> no network anymore.  "Down" doesn't work (like somebody said) because
> WTF does down mean.  The user just needs to know that they don't have a
> network connection anymore, even though there are a myriad of reasons
> that this even may have occurred.
I perfectly get your point here: the message should be clear and
precise. "Interrupted" may mislead the user.

OTOH, "The network is disconnected" (as proposed by Peter) is not really
nice because the network is not (dis)connected: it exists, and you
(dis)connect to (from) it. So we would get the same problem with that
formulation. Network vocabulary is subtle to use...

"The computer is no longer connected." "The machine has been
disconnected." "Your system is not connected anymore." "You are no
longer connected to XXXX." "The network connexion to/via XXXX has been
stopped." "The network connexion is no longer active."
Or a variant (cable/wifi): "The network cable is unplugged"/"The
wireless network XXXX is no longer reachable" (requiring a code change)
These are other ideas to adapt/mix, though I'm not English so I can't
really find the right native expressions.

My idea with this mail was more about raising the (little) problem and
giving you an easy way to correct that (no need to search in the source
to check and fix): feel free to choose the right expression, since your
are the English speaking developers (two reasons for you to know better
than me what to do ;-) ). Then we can simply edit the patches by hand to
change that, it takes 30 secs.

Hope you may find the right word!

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]