edit to ensure clarity by tech writer (section 2)

[thornshadow99]

This is an edit of Section 2 by a tech writer to ensure clarity.

[elarlang]

Hi @thornshadow99 - tech writing is for sure something we need, but it must take into account also the process and procedure we have.

Please read https://github.com/OWASP/ASVS/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#before-you-open-a-pull-request

Action to take from here - recommendation of what I did myself when I went through all requirements:

• grammar changes - if it is just a comma or typo, can go directly into PR
• tiny wording fixes - I opened a separate issue per chapter for requirements and chapter texts to point out all mistakes, point by point, to have a discussion and agreement
• if it is about the wording of the requirement, default should be a separate issue

It may feel like an unnecessary overhead, but it must be kept in mind that for many requirements, every word and comma may be discussed for a long time, and everything there is for a precise reason. Just rewording them, removing some words, or anything like that is just trashbinning all this work and most likely creating mistakes in the requirements.

[thornshadow99]

Thank you for your comments. In my edits, I generally kept away from the requirements for that reason. I know that requirements are often the subject of much debate so I stayed away from them.

However, I do not know if opening PRs and/or issues for every single change I made to the text is an efficient use of everybody's time. Who would go through all the minutiae and check every tiny thing? And that's why the text is in GitHub--to track all the changes.

I’m happy to clarify specific changes, but I believe reviewing my changes holistically is the most efficient path.

[elarlang]

However, I do not know if opening PRs and/or issues for every single change I made to the text is an efficient use of everybody's time. Who would go through all the minutiae and check every tiny thing? And that's why the text is in GitHub--to track all the changes.

For every single text change we don't need an issue - it is a valid recommendation when we going to change the wording for requirements.

I'll leave this to @tghosth to handle, as I'm not that useful when it comes to grammar and English :)