No. Why would it be? I hate it when people come up with defense based off of linguistics. Your defense is essentially "technically correct" sounds like "technical documentation" therefore one applies to the other because of the word "technical". That's an incidence of language and NOT of reality. Let me frame if from a rational and logical perspective:

Technical documentation is not a math proof. Its purpose is to transfer a working mental model to a human reader so they can make correct decisions. A document can be locally, pedantically correct and still be globally misleading if it emphasizes edge cases, omits constraints, or frames abstractions in a way that causes readers to generalize incorrectly.

In practice, what matters is not whether every sentence can be defended in isolation, but whether the document reliably produces correct outcomes in the hands of its intended audience. A simplification that is technically incomplete but operationally accurate is often better documentation than a perfectly correct description that obscures the dominant behavior of the system.

Engineers learn this the hard way. If you have ever followed documentation that was “technically correct” yet caused you to design the wrong thing, you already know this distinction matters. Correctness is necessary to an extent (and not to an excessive extent), but it is not sufficient. The goal is truthfulness at the level of use, not just sentence level defensibility.

Sure you do, you see a crime where no crime happened. Read my post carefully. I imposed nothing. A standard was imposed onto me. I didn't in turn impose anything on anyone else.

People may agree with you but don't imply something was done when nothing of the sort was even attempted. I did not impose my sloppiness onto others, what happened was someone tried to impose their pedantic-ness onto me and then you falsely accused me of imposing onto others. Please don't make up shit.

I highly disagree. You are judging a book by it's cover. Capitalization is no different from handwriting. Substance matters, capitalization and grammar are superficial. If meaning is captured then capitalization does not intrinsically matter.

You are correct that people judge documentation off of grammar and punctuation. But this is not a rational or logical thing people do. But I can't blame you or others, I mean after all the world believes in religion, myths and other fantasmic spiritual things with no solid evidence as backing. It's normal. I just felt HN was above that. Guess I'm wrong.

>...seems shallow / callous.

Seems that way only because you're not thinking deep enough. Think carefully whether it is rational or logical to judge the works of say Einstein because he had a grammar error or bad handwriting. The two are completely orthogonal and that is the rational perspective.

All this for writing Rust as rust! Wow! Tell me you have ADHD without telling me you have ADHD, just get on with the work and let others do their work. Don't flag their entire work. Linguistics is very inclusive. I took a course on it. No need to be a grammar nazi

You are correct, and it will be fixed!