Legal mark-up: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
No text is immune from adjustment, and if your only objective is to show you've read it, slipping in a harmless “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”, a “[[without limitation]]”, an “[[as the case may be]]” or — though on a fraught negotiation this is pushing it, be warned — an “[[(if any)]]” is a professionally satisfying but yet non-invasive way of achieving that.
No text is immune from adjustment, and if your only objective is to show you've read it, slipping in a harmless “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”, a “[[without limitation]]”, an “[[as the case may be]]” or — though on a fraught negotiation this is pushing it, be warned — an “[[(if any)]]” is a professionally satisfying but yet non-invasive way of achieving that.


No such ornamentation is [[calculated]] to improve the elegance of the text, of course. To do that you will need to disentangle some convoluted grammar — perhaps by deleting an [[as the case may be]]<ref> be careful not to ''add'' the same thing n one place and ''delete'' it in another: this will be seen as hostile action.</ref>. This will be seen as enemy action, especially if your edits are not directed at ''some'' legal content, however spurious.
No such ornamentation is [[calculated]] to improve the elegance of the text, of course. To do that you will need to disentangle some convoluted grammar — perhaps by deleting an [[as the case may be]]<ref> be careful not to ''add'' the same thing in one place and ''delete'' it in another: this will be seen as hostile action.</ref>. This will be seen as enemy action, especially if your edits are not directed at ''some'' legal content, however spurious.


{{plainenglish}}
{{plainenglish}}