Minor WINDOWS.md cleanups

The possessive form of "Windows" has been updated from "Windows's"
to "Windows'".

The function call "a poll(2) call" has been specified as
"a poll(2) system call" for clarity.

The phrase "and supposed" has been corrected to "and was supposed" to
improve sentence structure.

The phrase "However Microsoft has" now includes a comma, revised to
"However, Microsoft has" to enhance readability.

The statement "Supporting these is a pain" has been adjusted to
"Supporting these can be a pain" to better convey potential variability
in user experience.

CLA: trivial

Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Yang <kaishen.yy@antfin.com>
Reviewed-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/24242)

diff --git a/doc/designs/ddd/WINDOWS.md b/doc/designs/ddd/WINDOWS.md
index 033b2808d955943b66a80432676d7259cca21c6c..3a28e701e5b2494b8110bf9188a3178585240740 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/designs/ddd/WINDOWS.md
+++ b/doc/designs/ddd/WINDOWS.md
@@ -2,11 +2,11 @@ Windows-related issues
 ======================
 
 Supporting Windows introduces some complications due to some "fun" peculiarities
-of Windows's socket API.
+of Windows socket API.
 
-In general, Windows does not provide a poll(2) call. WSAPoll(2) was introduced
-in Vista and supposed to bring this functionality, but it had a bug in it which
-Microsoft refused to fix, making it rather pointless. However Microsoft has now
+In general, Windows does not provide a poll(2) system call. WSAPoll(2) was introduced
+in Vista and was supposed to bring this functionality, but it had a bug in it which
+Microsoft refused to fix, making it rather pointless. However, Microsoft has now
 finally fixed this bug in a build of Windows 10. So WSAPoll(2) is a viable
 method, but only on fairly new versions of Windows.
 
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Windows does not provide anything like epoll or kqueue. For high performance
 network I/O, you are expected to use a Windows API called I/O Completion Ports
 (IOCP).
 
-Supporting these is a pain for applications designed around polling. The reason
+Supporting these can be a pain for applications designed around polling. The reason
 is that IOCPs are a higher-level interface; it is easy to build an IOCP-like
 interface on top of polling, but it is not really possible to build a
 polling-like interface on top of IOCPs.