I would argue that, as opposed to "OK, men", where OK is being addressed to
the men, "OK then" as a stand-alone phrase doesn't need a comma. (If
someone said "OK then, men", would you really punctuate it "OK, then, men"?)
Also:
(er) 89, 190, 234, 265 the Montana Road -> Montana Avenue [bk: The street
name is Montana Avenue and it doesn't take a definite article.]
Ben
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 8/25/2015 4:28 AM, Jonathan Blake wrote:
Hot off the presses with all the latest corrections, here are our test
versions of The Omega Zone:
http://www.projectaon.org/test/en/xhtml/fw/03toz/title.htm
http://www.projectaon.org/test/en/xhtml-less-simple/fw/03toz/title.htm
Hi
Aside from a few (ne) issues which I've fixed-in-xml already, here's what
I spotted in my run-through of The Omega Zone...
(er) 44, 93, 104, 294: OK then -> OK, then
(er) 100: Very well then -> Very well, then [so: maybe]
(er) 149: bridge: the other -> bridge; the other
(er) 177: OK men -> OK, men
(er) 190: their path, leading to -> their path, which leads to [so: could
be more flowery: "their path, which ultimately leads to" but that's not
necessary. The original wording just seems odd to me, though.]
(er) 264: Michigan stirring him -> Michigan, stirring him
--
Simon Osborne
Project Aon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
