Typo fixes

[Jeremy Newman]

Francois, hmmmm, I don't know why, but this patch did not go. This is
what I got.

[jnewman at jnewman lostwages]$ patch -p0 < typos.diff
patching file wwn/wn19990718_4.xml
Hunk #1 FAILED at 977.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 996.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
wwn/wn19990718_4.xml.rej
patching file wwn/wn20010611_97.xml
Hunk #1 FAILED at 373.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
wwn/wn20010611_97.xml.rej
patching file wwn/wn20020213_115.xml
Hunk #1 FAILED at 623.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
wwn/wn20020213_115.xml.rej
patching file wwn/wn20020807_131.xml
Hunk #1 FAILED at 361.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
wwn/wn20020807_131.xml.rej
patching file wwn/wn20021025_141.xml
Hunk #1 FAILED at 553.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
wwn/wn20021025_141.xml.rej
patching file wwn/wn20021122_145.xml
Hunk #1 FAILED at 598.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
wwn/wn20021122_145.xml.rej
patching file wwn/wn20030516_170.xml
Hunk #1 FAILED at 404.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 414.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
wwn/wn20030516_170.xml.rej
patching file wwn/wn20030523_171.xml
Hunk #1 FAILED at 274.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 400.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
wwn/wn20030523_171.xml.rej



On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 16:28, Francois Gouget wrote:
> Apparently some typo fixes were not applied the first time around. So
> here's the second round. It can be applied by doing:
> 
> cd lostwages
> patch -p0 </path/to/email.txt
> 
> 
> Changelog:
>    Fix common typos in the web site.
> 
> 
> Index: wwn/wn19990718_4.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn19990718_4.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.1.1.1
> diff -u -r1.1.1.1 wn19990718_4.xml
> --- wwn/wn19990718_4.xml	2 Dec 2002 17:08:24 -0000	1.1.1.1
> +++ wwn/wn19990718_4.xml	9 Jun 2003 20:40:39 -0000
> @@ -977,13 +977,13 @@
>  <p />
> 
>  At present, it is possible to run multiple Win32 apps by starting
> -seperate Wine processes manually at the command line, which would then
> -start seperate Wine server processes along with the app.  These processes
> +separate Wine processes manually at the command line, which would then
> +start separate Wine server processes along with the app.  These processes
>  cannot communicate amongst each other using standard Win32 IPC APIs,
>  may have problems due to unserialized access to registry files, etc.
>  Some of this may be solvable by having a shared Wine server process.
>  Extending the Wine server model in this way is <b>not</b> what people are
> -discussing as seperate address spaces though, right?
> +discussing as separate address spaces though, right?
> 
>  <p />
> 
> @@ -996,14 +996,14 @@
>  <p />
> 
>  The problem with the shared address space model is that it does not
> -provide the memory protection that would be provided with the seperated
> +provide the memory protection that would be provided with the separated
>  model, and that the new process will not have the same memory layout
>  it would have had in Windows, right?
> 
>  <p />
> 
>  If that's all it is, why is it a big deal?  Unless I'm mistaken,
> -providing seperated address spaces will be a <b>big</b> deal, requiring
> +providing separated address spaces will be a <b>big</b> deal, requiring
>  marshalling of all message data, and various other tweaky-to-get-right
>  tasks.  On the other side of the coin, how common is the use of
>  CreateProcess amongst the apps people want to run?  Is this useful
> Index: wwn/wn20010611_97.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20010611_97.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.1.1.1
> diff -u -r1.1.1.1 wn20010611_97.xml
> --- wwn/wn20010611_97.xml	2 Dec 2002 17:08:15 -0000	1.1.1.1
> +++ wwn/wn20010611_97.xml	9 Jun 2003 20:41:01 -0000
> @@ -372,7 +373,7 @@
>  <quote who="Patrick Stridvall">
>  <p>However regardless of this, uname shouldn't be used
>  (at least not directly). Autoconf provides a standard
> -way to do this (which BTW happends to use uname).
> +way to do this (which BTW happens to use uname).
>  It can be used as below.</p>
>  <p><code>AC_CANONICAL_HOST<br />
> 
> Index: wwn/wn20020213_115.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20020213_115.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.1.1.1
> diff -u -r1.1.1.1 wn20020213_115.xml
> --- wwn/wn20020213_115.xml	2 Dec 2002 17:08:21 -0000	1.1.1.1
> +++ wwn/wn20020213_115.xml	9 Jun 2003 20:41:11 -0000
> @@ -622,7 +623,7 @@
>  contribute significantly to the project.  Only the developers contribute,
>  and it is not at all clear to me that they would stop.</p>
> 
> -<p>Marcus Meissner has already shown that the existance of our AFPLed DCOM
> +<p>Marcus Meissner has already shown that the existence of our AFPLed DCOM
>  code didn't stop him from going ahead and doing it himself.  On the
>  contrary - it helped him, since he got hints from our design. It's a shame
>  that he had to, since we've been working hard to find a way to contribute
> Index: wwn/wn20020807_131.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20020807_131.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.1.1.1
> diff -u -r1.1.1.1 wn20020807_131.xml
> --- wwn/wn20020807_131.xml	2 Dec 2002 17:08:38 -0000	1.1.1.1
> +++ wwn/wn20020807_131.xml	9 Jun 2003 20:41:21 -0000
> @@ -359,7 +361,7 @@
>   registries in addition to compiling wine so most of the time if you
>   already have these set up then it is not nessesary to use wineinstall.
>  </p><p>
> - However the structure of both the .wine/config and registries and thier
> + However the structure of both the .wine/config and registries and their
>   contents has changed over time and as new features are added to wine.
>    For example over time more functionality has been added to the various
>   dlls and in the default config file various dlls now default to builtin
> Index: wwn/wn20021025_141.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20021025_141.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> diff -u -r1.2 wn20021025_141.xml
> --- wwn/wn20021025_141.xml	9 Jun 2003 15:18:38 -0000	1.2
> +++ wwn/wn20021025_141.xml	9 Jun 2003 20:41:25 -0000
> @@ -552,7 +553,7 @@
>  to do page rendering and such.</p>
> 
>  <p>Malte replied, <quote who="Malte Starostik">
> -Hmm, we're implementing the absolutely neccessary parts in reaktivate
> +Hmm, we're implementing the absolutely necessary parts in reaktivate
>  with Konqueror, but that's run from inside Konq already, so it's a bit
>  special. Maybe there would be a way to use either browser with those
>  interfaces? :-)</quote></p>
> Index: wwn/wn20021122_145.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20021122_145.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -u -r1.1 wn20021122_145.xml
> --- wwn/wn20021122_145.xml	2 Dec 2002 17:40:34 -0000	1.1
> +++ wwn/wn20021122_145.xml	9 Jun 2003 20:41:28 -0000
> @@ -597,14 +598,14 @@
>  reentrent variant if present as well as having an
>  alternative implementation if not.
>  </p><p>
> -As to the implict existance question: I'm not sure.
> +As to the implict existence question: I'm not sure.
>  First of all, to answer the related question:
>  Should you have a alternative implementation for
>  defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) &amp;&amp; !defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM)?
>  </p><p>
>  IMHO the answer is no. It is not worth the effort to
>  support hypotetical platforms unless we can verify the
> -existance of one.
> +existence of one.
>  </p><p>
>  To return to the original question:
>  I suggest that we should detect the presence or absence
> Index: wwn/wn20030516_170.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20030516_170.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> diff -u -r1.2 wn20030516_170.xml
> --- wwn/wn20030516_170.xml	9 Jun 2003 15:18:38 -0000	1.2
> +++ wwn/wn20030516_170.xml	9 Jun 2003 20:41:40 -0000
> @@ -403,7 +404,7 @@
> 
>  </section><section
>  	title="Separating 16/32 Bit OLE Functions"
> -	subject="PATCH - Start seperating 16/32 in Ole and ole32 memlockbytes"
> +	subject="PATCH - Start separating 16/32 in Ole and ole32 memlockbytes"
>  	archive="http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/05/0404.html"
>  	posts="2"
>  	startdate="05/15/2003"
> @@ -413,7 +414,7 @@
>  OLE32.  He gave an update of what he's trying to do and some of
>  the issues involved:</p>
>  <quote who="Steven Edwards"><p>
> - I am doing some work trying to seperate Ole* and Ole32 for use in
> + I am doing some work trying to separate Ole* and Ole32 for use in
>   ReactOS. Before we can make use of most of the WINE code all of the
>   Non-Win32api imported functions are going to need to be compiled out or
>   rewitten. I dont need someone to do this for me but I am going to need a
> Index: wwn/wn20030523_171.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20030523_171.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -u -r1.1 wn20030523_171.xml
> --- wwn/wn20030523_171.xml	27 May 2003 14:25:49 -0000	1.1
> +++ wwn/wn20030523_171.xml	9 Jun 2003 20:41:41 -0000
> @@ -273,7 +274,7 @@
>  At one point Dimi thought a dsp2make utility would be a useful addition and Steven
>  mentioned ReactOS had one.  He went on to discuss some future plans,
>  <quote who="Steven Edwards">
> - My goal if the ReactOS guys can get more then winhello working is to have WINEs
> + My goal if the ReactOS guys can get more than winhello working is to have WINEs
>   shell32 and comctl32 running for Linux world</quote>.   </p>
> 
>  <p>All in all the meeting was quite successful and a lot of people were glad to
> @@ -399,7 +400,7 @@
>  will put in the new interface (that will also let me implement some of
>  GetCharacterProperties more obscure features). That is not likely to
>  happen. I suspect FriBidi has fallen off the end of the earth. It does
> -not implement mirroring, nor does it implement Arabic Shaping (wierd,
> +not implement mirroring, nor does it implement Arabic Shaping (weird,
>  considering that the maintainer is from Iran). It only supports UCS-4.
>  </p><p>
>  Also - like I told Mike H on IRC, static linking ICU will mean that we

-- 
Jeremy Newman <jnewman at winehq.org>