Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 2675558" data-attributes="member: 18549">No, it implies that they do not intend to repeat clarifications and changes that appear in errata, leading the reader to refer to the published errata to see if the answer to his question lies there instead of the FAQ.&nbsp; It's a warning that there is no redundancy between the two documents.&nbsp; If something has already been corrected in the errata, they will not publish FAQ questions about issues that deal with that rule.That rule changes found in published errata are excluded from FAQ documents does not imply that FAQ documents contain any unpublished rule changes, much in the way that it is not the case that a library which does not contain any published books by Stephen King therefore contains unpublished books by Stephen King.The quoted sentence above is vague and I could see how it would be misleading.&nbsp; Despite that, even if you were to read the quoted sentence as implying that there are multiple species of errata, some of which are &quot;published errata&quot; and are found in the errata documents, and some of which are not published errata, and may be found elsewhere, it still does not imply that the FAQ is the location of the other species of errata.Edit:Also, I'd just like to point out (not in relation to the above quote), because it drives me nuts to see it otherwise, that the singular is erratum and the plural is errata.&nbsp; Of course, the plural of forum is fora...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lonely Tylenol, post: 2675558, member: 18549"] No, it implies that they do not intend to repeat clarifications and changes that appear in errata, leading the reader to refer to the published errata to see if the answer to his question lies there instead of the FAQ. It's a warning that there is no redundancy between the two documents. If something has already been corrected in the errata, they will not publish FAQ questions about issues that deal with that rule. That rule changes found in published errata are excluded from FAQ documents does not imply that FAQ documents contain any unpublished rule changes, much in the way that it is not the case that a library which does not contain any published books by Stephen King therefore contains unpublished books by Stephen King. The quoted sentence above is vague and I could see how it would be misleading. Despite that, even if you were to read the quoted sentence as implying that there are multiple species of errata, some of which are "published errata" and are found in the errata documents, and some of which are not published errata, and may be found elsewhere, it still does not imply that the FAQ is the location of the other species of errata. Edit: Also, I'd just like to point out (not in relation to the above quote), because it drives me nuts to see it otherwise, that the singular is erratum and the plural is errata. Of course, the plural of forum is fora... [/QUOTE]

Verification