- From: Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:10:05 +0200
- To: Peter Winzell <Peter.Winzell@melcogot.com>, public-autowebplatform <public-autowebplatform@w3.org>, "ted@w3c.org" <ted@w3c.org>, Paul Boyes <Paul.Boyes@inrix.com>, Rudi Streif at JLR <rstreif@jaguarlandrover.com>, 이원석 <wonsuk.lee@etri.re.kr>
On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 07:56 +0000, Peter Winzell wrote: > Hi Gunnar! > Good point . I don't recall that we have ever discussed this issue (BE vs > AE). I think that since we have had mainly British editors (Adam,Kevin) > for VIS we should perhaps use British English for VIS. For VIAS we have > Urata-san , Wonsuk-san and I am not sure what we would prefer there. Thanks Peter, > > My view is that it should be consistent, thus that we either use BE or AE, > but not necessarily the same for both VIS and VIAS. What is the groups > view on this ? I just imagined there might be a W3C global policy? If there is a main editor identified for each document then letting them choose (consistently within one document) seems a fair compromise otherwise. And yes, I meant British English and American English, not English vs. American. (No offence intended to either one - or to any other English variation that might exist around the world :-) ) - Gunnar > > Br > Peter Winzell
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 08:10:48 UTC