[PATCH v1 3/3] doc: develop: Fix typos and wording in binman/entries.rst

[Lothar Rubusch]

Hi, thank you all! This is outstanding, such a fast feedback! As I
also just ran a tool over the texts, adjusted formatting and
reverted/accepted some changes manually to my knowledge (I'm not a
native speaker). Please, could you clarify the following?

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:02 AM Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Am 19. November 2024 23:28:37 MEZ schrieb Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch at gmail.com>:
[...]
> > Note that some entries are subclasses of others, using and extending their
> >-features to produce new behaviours.
> >+features to produce new behaviors.
> >
>
> The project once used to prefer British English.

So, I shall revert to the original rather British i.e. "behaviour" and
"rationalise" wording, correct?

[...]
> >-Entry: alternates-fdt: Entry that generates alternative sections for each devicetree provided
> >+Entry: alternates-fdt: Entry that generates alternative sections for each device-tree provided
>
> 'Devicetree' is a frequently used spelling variant, cf. https://www.devicetree.org/ .

Since I found "device tree", "devicetree" and "device-tree", could you
please advice me, what is the preferred term here?

[...]
> >@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ icons, for example. For verified boot it could be used for each part of the
> > image (e.g. separate FIPs for A and B) but cannot describe the whole
> > firmware image. As with FMAP there is no hierarchy defined, although FMAP
> > works around this by having 'section' areas which encompass others. A
> >-similar workaround would be possible with FIP but is not currently defined.
> >+similar workaround would be possible with FIP but it is not currently defined.
>
> Both versions seem to be correct English.

I understand. My tool here claimed to do it a bit more formal. I have
no idea, to be honest. Shall I revert it and better leave as is?