W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: Spelling of "cachable"

From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 18:28:09 +0100
Message-Id: <340D9E29.66875227@algroup.co.uk>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: Bob Jernigan <jern@spaceaix.jhuapl.edu>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4284
Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
> Of course.  But the reason why we all agree about "referer" is
> that there is a standard spelling, and the word (according to
> the OED, again) dates from 1683 -- long enough to have made it
> into the recent releases of our spelling checkers.  As far as
> I know, neither "cachable" nor "cacheable" has been used before
> the computer age, and we need to make a judgement call.

Since the discussion continues, here's my $0.02 (1.3p?): it should be
cacheable, coz cachable ruins the pronounciation (catchable? cackable?
or like the ch in "loch"?). Plus, I have a very good instinct for
correct English spelling - I almost never get it wrong (typos
notwithstanding), and my instinct says "cacheable".



Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 1997 10:31:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC