|
Check-in Number:
|
3657 | |
| Date: |
2003-Oct-31 21:00:05 (local)
2003-Oct-31 20:00:05 (UTC) |
| User: | rse |
| Branch: | |
| Comment: |
fix typos |
| Tickets: |
|
| Inspections: |
|
| Files: |
|
ossp-pkg/platform/platform.pod 1.5 -> 1.6
--- platform.pod 2003/10/26 11:34:44 1.5
+++ platform.pod 2003/10/31 20:00:05 1.6
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
##
-## OSSP platform - Platform Identification
+## OSSP platform - Unix Platform Identification
## Copyright (c) 2003 The OSSP Project <http://www.ossp.org/>
## Copyright (c) 2003 Ralf S. Engelschall <rse@engelschall.com>
##
@@ -62,8 +62,8 @@
I<technology> identification. For each of those six identifications,
there is a I<verbose>, I<regular> and I<concise> version.
-This leads to eithteen (2x3x3) available identification strings for each
-platform, from which usually 2 are choosen in a particular situation.
+This leads to eighteen (2x3x3) available identification strings for each
+platform, from which usually 2 are chosen in a particular situation.
This is done by assembling the platform identification string using a
I<FORMAT> string containing one or more identification constructs of the
forms "C<%[xx]>" (verbose), "C<%{xx}>" (regular) and "C<%E<lt>xxE<gt>>"
@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@
does not use a I<vendor> identification (cannot be determined most of
the time and is not used at all in all projects I've ever seen) and
is a lot more flexible (class, product and technology identifications
-combined with verbose, regular and consise outputs). The drawback of
+combined with verbose, regular and concise outputs). The drawback of
B<OSSP platform> is that it (still) knows less particular platforms,
although the generic platform identification is sufficient enough most
of the time.
|
|
