User talk:Dgtsyb/Archives/2012/06

G-code
We just collided on a whack-a-mole revert at G-code -- you beat me. Glrx (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry; will go back to back and forth. — Dgtsyb (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem; I was just amused by the near simultaneous reverts; it happens every once in a while. Glrx (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

OSI layers
While I understand your view that the mods you made "make more sense," I'd point out that your version introduces an ambiguity that was not present in the previous versions (which I'd written). The phrase "In the 7-layer OSI model" permits two interpretations: I grant that there probably aren't very many readers who would unquestioningly seize on the second (wrong) interpretation. But you, too, will probably grant that many readers might be at least momentarily tripped up as they paused to consider the second interpretation before rejecting it in favor of your intended one.
 * The one you intended, "In the OSI model (which, by the way, happens to feature 7 layers)," and
 * Another, "In the particular OSI model that features 7 layers (as distinct from those other OSI models that don't)."

Anyway, perhaps we can agree on a compromise that—I think—meets your interest:
 * "In the (7-layer) OSI model."

Thoughts?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, but spell out seven. My problem was that with it at the end of the sentence it is too distant from the subject that it qualifies, leading to reduced clarity: i.e., "layer 5 of 7" leads to the questions: "7 of what?"  "What has 7 layers?".   Even OSI (seven-layer) model is better than the seven at the end of a long and tediously technical sentence. — Dgtsyb (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with spelling out seven. Indeed, I'd wanted to do so because ending a sentence with a numeral seemed crass. But style requires consistency, which means five as well, and some Wikipedians freak about spelling out numbers. Not knowing your personal views on so weighty a matter, I chose to avoid a squabble on that point.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it is actually Layer 5 of the seven-layer model, but some time ago the capitalization police came thru and changed all the Layer 5s to layer 5. ISO/ITU call it Layer 5, not layer five, and to call it layer five would be so far off of the standards terminology to make is useless.  OTOH, the standards do not call it a seven-layer model at all: the standards describe a model that has seven layers.  Therefore, I would way the layer 5 is as close as possible after the capitalization police to the standards terminology, yet calling it a seven-layer model is simply descriptive and there is no inconsistency with that at all.  One way to get rid of the 5 without causing confusion might be to call it the fifth layer of the seven-layer model. — Dgtsyb (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)