The problem about being pedantic is that you can choose different directions to be pedantic in. My "direction" is that code isn't written in a vacuum, it mixes with code millions of other people wrote and runs on machines millions of other people built. As such:
My concern isn't that the phrasing in the book is wrong, and I have expressly not argued that. It's that it presents the issue as having no further depth, and these two choices as equivalent. They aren't. The "Some processors are even able to switch between the two orders on the fly." that follows makes it even worse, at least to me it really sounds like you needn't give any care.
And the people reading this book are probably the people who should be aware of more real-world background on endianness, for the good of the next million of people dealing with what they produced.
