Fix spelling in the docs

Also rewrap at 80 chars (which looked to be what it was at in most
places)

1 files changed, 29 insertions, 29 deletions

diff --git a/docs/obeservations.md b/docs/obeservations.md
index f4e4bf17..71502424 100644
--- a/docs/obeservations.md
+++ b/docs/obeservations.md
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Observations on implementing XMPP
 =================================
 After spending the last two and a half month basically writing my own XMPP
 library from scratch I decided to share some of the observations I made in the
-process.. In part this article can be seen as a response to a blog post made by
+process. In part this article can be seen as a response to a blog post made by
 Dr. Ing. Georg Lukas. The blog post introduces a couple of XEP (XMPP Extensions)
 which make the life on mobile devices a lot easier but states that they are
 currently very few implementations of those XEPs. So I went ahead and
@@ -19,27 +19,27 @@ and straight forward. But then came the XEPs.
 ###Multi-User Chat
 The first one was XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat. This is the one XEP of the XEPs I’m
 going to mention in my article which is actually wildly adopted. Most clients
-and servers I know of support MUC. However  the level of completeness varies.
+and servers I know of support MUC. However the level of completeness varies.
 MUC actually introduces access and permission roles which are far more complex
 than what some of us are used to from IRC but a lot of clients just don’t
 implement them. I’m not implementing them myself (at least for now) because I
-somewhat doubt that someone would actually use them. (How ever this might be
-some sort of chicken or egg problem.)  I did find some strange bugs though which
-might be interesting for other library developers. In theory a MUC server
+somewhat doubt that someone would actually use them (however this might be some
+sort of chicken or egg problem). I did find some strange bugs though which might
+be interesting for other library developers. In theory a MUC server
 implementation can allow a  single user (same jid) to join a conference room
 multiple times with the same nick from different clients. This means if someone
 wants to participate in a conference from two different devices (mobile and
-desktop for example) one wouldn’t have to name oneself userDesktop and
-userMobile but just user. Both ejabberd and prosody support this but with
-strange side effects. prosody for example doesn’t allow a user to change its
+desktop for example) one wouldn’t have to name oneself `userDesktop` and
+`userMobile` but just `user`. Both ejabberd and prosody support this but with
+strange side effects. Prosody for example doesn’t allow a user to change its
 name once two clients are “merged” by having the same nick.
 
 ###Carbons and Stream Management
-Two of the other XEPs Lukas’ mentions - Carbons (XEP-0280) and Stream Management
-(XEP-0198) - were actually fairly easy to implement. The only challenges were to
-find a server to support them (I ended up running my own prosody server) and a
-desktop client to test them with. For carbons there is a patched mcabber version
-and gajim. After implementing stream management I had very good results on my
+Two of the other XEPs Lukas mentions — Carbons (XEP-0280) and Stream Management
+(XEP-0198) — were actually fairly easy to implement. The only challenges were to
+find a server to support them (I ended up running my own Prosody server) and a
+desktop client to test them with. For carbons there is a patched Mcabber version
+and Gajim. After implementing stream management I had very good results on my
 mobile device. I had sessions running for up to 24 hours with a walking outside,
 loosing mobile coverage for a few minutes and so on. The only limitation was
 that I had to keep on developing and reinstalling my app.
@@ -52,14 +52,14 @@ come to some sort of consent among XMPP developers to ultimately increase the
 interoperability. OTR has some down sides which make it difficult or at times
 even dangerous to implement within XMPP. First of all it is a synchronous
 protocol which is tunneled through a different protocol (XMPP). Synchronous
-means - among other things - auto replies. (An OTR session begins with “hi I’m
-speaking otr give me your key” “ok cool here is my key”) And auto replies - we
-know that since the first time an out of office auto responder went postal - are
+means — among other things — auto replies. (An OTR session begins with “hi I’m
+speaking otr give me your key” “ok cool here is my key”) And auto replies — we
+know that since the first time an out of office auto responder went postal — are
 dangerous. Things really start to get messy when you use one of the best
-features of XMPP  - multiple clients. The way XMPP works is that clients are
+features of XMPP — multiple clients. The way XMPP works is that clients are
 encouraged to send their messages to the raw jid and let the server decide what
 full jid the messages are routed to. If in doubt even all of them. So what
-happens when Alice sends a  start-otr-message to Bobs raw jid? Bob receives  the
+happens when Alice sends a  start-otr-message to Bobs raw jid? Bob receives the
 message on his notebook as well as his cell phone. Both of them answer. Alice
 gets two different replies. Shit explodes. Even if Alice  sends the message to
 bob/notebook chances are that Bob has carbon messages enabled and still receives
@@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ the messages on both devices. Now assuming that Bobs client is clever enough not
 to auto reply to carbonated messages Bob/cellphone will still end up with a lot
 of garbage messages. (Essentially the entire conversation between Alice and
 Bob/notebook but unreadable of course) Therefor it should be good practice to
-tag OTR messages  as both private and no-copy. (private is part of the carbons
-XEP, no-copy is a general hint. I found that prosody for some reasons doesn’t
+tag OTR messages as both private and no-copy (private is part of the carbons
+XEP, no-copy is a general hint). I found that prosody for some reasons doesn’t
 honor the private tag on outgoing messages. While this is easily fixed I presume
 that having both the private and the no-copy tag will make it more compatible
-with servers or clients I don’t know about yet)
+with servers or clients I don’t know about yet.
 
 ####Rules to follow when implementing OTR
 To summarize my observations on implementing OTR in XMPP let me make the
@@ -81,17 +81,17 @@ following three statements.
 and have the receiving server or user decide how they should be routed OTR
 messages must be send to a specific resource. To make this work the user should
 be given the option to select the presence (which can be assisted with some
-educated guessing by the client based on previous messages).
-Furthermore a client should encourage a user to choose meaningful presences
-instead of the clients name or even random ones. Something like /mobile,
-/notebook, /desktop is a greater assist to any one who wants to start an otr
-session then /Gajim, /mcabber or /pidgin
+educated guessing by the client based on previous messages).  Furthermore a
+client should encourage a user to choose meaningful presences instead of the
+clients name or even random ones. Something like `/mobile`, `/notebook`,
+`/desktop` is a greater assist to any one who wants to start an otr session then
+`/Gajim`, `/mcabber` or `/pidgin`.
 
 2. Messages should be tagged private and no-copy to avoid unnecessary traffic or
 otr error loops with faulty clients. This tagging should be done even if your
 own client doesn’t support carbons.
 
-3. When dealing with “legacy clients” - meaning clients which don’t follow my
-advise a client should be extra careful not to create message loops. This means
-to not respond with otr errors if a client is not 100% sure it is the only
+3. When dealing with “legacy clients” — meaning clients which don’t follow my
+advise — a client should be extra careful not to create message loops. This
+means to not respond with otr errors if a client is not 100% sure it is the only
 client which received the message