[MPlayer-DOCS] [PATCH] XviD documentation reaching almost completeness

[The Wanderer]

Guillaume POIRIER wrote:

> Le mar 07/09/2004 à 08:10, The Wanderer a écrit :
> 
>> Guillaume POIRIER wrote:
>> The relevant portion is below, and:
>> 
>>> +.B overflow_control_strength=<0\-100>
>>> +During two pass, a scaled bitrate curve is computed.
>>> +The difference between that expected curve and the result obtained during
>>> +encoding is called overflow.
>>> +Obviously, the two pass Rate Controller tries to compensate that overflow
>>> +distributing it over next frames to be encoded.
>>> +This setting controls how much overflow is distributed at each new frame.
>>> +Low values allow lazy overflow control, big rate bursts are compensated
>>> +more slowly (could lead to lack of precision for small clips).
>> 
>> the problem is still there. As I said, and as I think Diego
>> indicated and/or concurred, the inclusion or omission of the "for"
>> drastically changes the meaning of the phrase; in this case, the
>> meaning without does not remotely seem to be the one you want.
> 
> I read again the description and I think I finally understood where
> the problem is. How about:
> +This setting controls how much of the overflow is distributed at each
> +new frame.

...Actually, that's a completely different problem, not at all the one I
was talking about. The way you've just suggested for this one is
acceptable, though I'd use "distributed to" instead of "distributed at".

The problem I was talking about is the use of "compensate that
overflow"; Diego said that it should be "compensate the overflow", and I
pointed out that it should actually be "compensate for the overflow",
because "compensate foo" and "compensate for foo" have very different
(and, superficially, almost entirely unrelated) meanings.

> Please tell me if I'm wrong. I'm maybe that on written English, but
> the simple fact that I write docs means I do care it's clear. ;-)

Acknowledged, and thank you.

>> For that matter, I don't see how the sentence in this version of
>> the patch is at all different from the one in either of the
>> previous two versions. Did you send the wrong one by mistake?
> 
> Unfortunately, that was the correct patch (that corrected the
> sentence about "Higher values") :-(. I guess I didn't get were the
> problem was.

The difficulty appears to have been that we were talking about different
sentences, and thus different problems. <grin> Rather explains the
confusion... is it any clearer now?

>> I don't like to seem pushy, picky and/or bad-guy, but I'd rather
>> get things right... and this is one of the few areas in which I
>> know what "right" *is*.
> 
> Well I understand that, you know. As long as we can talk to each
> other in a very civilized way, I'm open to all suggestions.

I do my best to remain polite and otherwise civilized, but I know I
don't always succeed; I do, however, appreciate the attitude.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.