[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 11/12] doc: Fix broken Engish in the common options description

[Derek Buitenhuis]

On 2013-03-30 6:05 PM, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> -All the numerical options, if not specified otherwise, accept in input
>> -a string representing a number, which may contain one of the
>> -SI unit prefixes, for example 'K', 'M', 'G'.
>> -If 'i' is appended after the prefix, binary prefixes are used,
> 
>> +All the numerical options, if not specified otherwise, accept
>> +a string representing a number as input, which may contain one of the
>> +following SI unit suffixes: 'K', 'M', 'G'.
> 
> Not equivalent, this suggests that only those suffixes are recognized.

[...]

> All the numerical options, if not specified otherwise, accept a string
> representing a number as input, which may be followed by one of the SI
> unit prefixes, for example 'K', 'M', 'G'.

OK. I'll use something like this for v2.

> "prefix" is favored over "suffix", because this is the term SI
> prefixes are universally referenced to in the scientific/engineering
> community.

OK. The original was confusing due to:

"which may contain one of the SI unit prefixes"

which is ambiguous at best.

>> +If 'i' is appended to the suffix, binary suffixes are used,
>>  which are based on powers of 1024 instead of powers of 1000.
>> -The 'B' postfix multiplies the value by 8, and can be
>> -appended after a unit prefix or used alone. This allows using for
>> -example 'KB', 'MiB', 'G' and 'B' as number postfix.
>> +The 'B' suffix multiplies the value by 8, and can be
>> +appended after a unit suffix or used alone. This allows using for
>> +example 'KB', 'MiB', 'G' and 'B' as number suffix.
> 
> About "binary suffixes", the correct term is "prefixes for binary
> multiplies", see for example:
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
> 
> So I suggest something like:
> 
> If 'i' is appended to the SI unit prefix, the complete prefix must be
> interpreted as a unit prefix for binary multiplies, which is based on
> powers of 1024 instead of powers of 1000. ...
> 
> Unfortunately not still very clear, and a bit verbose, so feel free to
> propose something better.

OK. s/must/will/ is a good start. I'll think on it.

- Derek