- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:10:08 +0200
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Anton Prowse wrote: > I wasn't sure if the spec was yet in a sufficiently advanced state to > raise spelling issues, but given today's discussion [...] After the event, of course, I realize that the discussion to which I referred took place on www-archive, not www-style. Sorry for the noise on this list. Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net > which has been lying around for a while, which raises the "descendant" > vs "descendent" issue that David Baron looks to have at least partly > addressed. Perhaps the source references are of use. > > > I just wanted to raise a quick editorial issue: the words "descendent" > and "descendant" are used throughout the spec, both as adjectives and > nouns. Whilst both are acceptable in both roles according to Merriam > Webster, I think the spec should opt for one spelling per role and use > it consistently. Note that Merriam Webster prefers the '-ant' form in > both roles, while the Oxford English Dictionary is having none of the > '-ent' form at all! > > Also, in 17.5.2 (Table width algorithms: the 'table-layout' property): > > # However, once the calculated value of 'width' for the table is > # found (using the algorithms given below or, when appropriate, some > # other UA dependant algorithm) then the other parts of section 10.3 > # do apply. > > s/UA dependant/UA-dependent/ > > > Cheers, > Anton Prowse > http://dev.moonhenge.net > > > >
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 16:11:20 UTC