- From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 18:28:09 +0100
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: Bob Jernigan <jern@spaceaix.jhuapl.edu>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
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". Cheers, Ben. -- 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