minor typos

diff --git a/doc/html/comparison.html b/doc/html/comparison.html
index d9ad281..cd45e16 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/html/comparison.html
+++ b/doc/html/comparison.html
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
                <br />
                So the evaluation of lossless codecs typically depends mainly on other features, which is what our first table shows; features like how well it is supported in devices and software, license costs, etc.  Additionally, as archiving is one of the main applications for a lossless codec, of chief importance is the ability to use and recover data in the future.  FLAC stands out as the most widely supported codec, and the only codec that at once is non-proprietary, is unencumbered by patents, has an open-source reference implementation, has a well documented format and API, and has several other independent implementations.<br />
                <br />
-               The rest of the tables show in detail the compression ratios and speed of the codecs in different modes.  FLAC's high decoding speed is due to very low complexity and is instrumental to its support by dozens of consumer electronic devices.  Its compression ratio is also within a 3% of even the most complex codecs.<br />
+               The rest of the tables show in detail the compression ratios and speed of the codecs in different modes.  FLAC's high decoding speed is due to very low complexity and is instrumental to its support by dozens of consumer electronic devices.  Its compression ratio is also within 3% of even the most complex codecs.<br />
                <br />
                <font size="-1">(Note: this comparison leaves out some archaic or impractical codecs; for <a href="#alternate_links">below</a> for some other comparisons.)</font><br />
                <br />