: How to avoid repeating the adjective “corresponding”? I have the following sentence (I am not native): If the context relies on a single anchor (Self, Parent, Following), the nodes within

Vote Up Vote Down

In some cases, "corresponding" could be replaced by noun or adjective which helps identify the context. For example:

If the context relies on a single anchor (Self, Parent, Following), the nodes within that scope are treated according to this context and an anchoring node is created in the output XML file.

In this example, "that scope" refers back to "the context" (assuming the scope is determined by the context) as a shorter and clearer alternative to "the scope associated with the context".

(Whether "anchoring" or "anchor" would be more appropriate depends on the context. If "anchor" is used as a distinct formal term in the context of nodes with a different meaning, then using "anchoring" would be less confusing. It is possible that "anchoring" is not correct or clear for this writing.)

Another phrasing would be:

If the context relies on a single anchor (Self, Parent, Following), the nodes within that scope are treated according to this context and a node is created in the output XML file to identify this scope.

Giving the purpose of the node, may not only make clear to which node one is referring but also why the node is used.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Try "related", "similar" or "same".

If the context relies on a single anchor (Self, Parent, Following),
the nodes within the related scope are treated with regard to
this context and a corresponding node is created in the output XML
file.

edit: also, what do you mean by "the nodes ... are treated with regard to this context"? Do you mean the nodes are treated in some special way? Or do you mean the nodes are treated as if they were related to the context, and thus a corresponding node is created in the output?

(0)