W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > January 2021

Re: [csswg-drafts] Informal spellings in specifications (#5850)

From: Rachel Andrew via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 20:37:15 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-757540048-1610311033-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
With my "editor of technical material written for a global audience" hat on, I'd suggest to avoid these spellings. They are unlikely to be the English people have learned, and specs are hard enough to understand as it is.

I am not a fan of the idea that people could search to find out what they meant. If there is a word that people are likely to understand and not need to search for the meaning of, it makes more sense to use that word. Formal usage is more likely to be globally understood. Things do change, it used to be that contractions were said to be bad practice, but - as in the TAG guide - more style guides encourage the most common contractions. So if there is actual data on these words being better, that's a discussion to have. I think it would be good if we are consistent however.

As far as style guides for technical content go, the Microsoft Style Guide is very good https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/welcome/ but I don't think I have seen anything in there that addresses this particular issue.

GitHub Notification of comment by rachelandrew
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5850#issuecomment-757540048 using your GitHub account

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Sunday, 10 January 2021 20:37:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:25 UTC