W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2009

Re: [CSS21] spellings used in specification

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:10:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4A2D37E0.7000903@moonhenge.net>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:18 GMT