Re: feature/eglot-texi-manual 4725c123f3 2/5: ; eglot.texi: Fix typos and minor inconsistenciesfeature/eglot-texi-manual 4725c123f3 2/5: ; eglot.texi: Fix typos and minor inconsistencies

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > You donʼt want progressive, you want conservative: if the existing
  > > text is not clearly incorrect, donʼt change it, even if thereʼs some
  > > guide that says itʼs 'wrong'.

  > Exactly.  We should always err on that side, out of respect to the
  > original author(s) if for no other reasons.  Please try following this
  > principle.

Nothing about Eglot is "existing text" as far as Emacs is concerned.
All of it is proposed to add.  If we see ways to improve it before we
add it, we should do so.  Better now than later.

Consistency of style is a virtue in documentation, and so is
consistency of terminology.  These are important reasons to make
documentation text more uniform when installing it.

We are not all equally skilled in writing clear English text.
We should improve the writing that contributors submit.

Documemtation shuld be structured according to the concepts of use,
not based on implementation.  THe basic question here is, should we
ask users to think in terms of "documenting hwo to use Eglot" or in
terms of "documenting various features" (which happen to be provided
by Eglot)?

People seem to have assumed the former, but we ought to consider the
latter too, and see which approach will be easiest to understand.

Would someone please show me the documentation about Eglot?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)