- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:55:32 -0700
- To: public-dwbp-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <570E9624.4030002@lbl.gov>
Personally, I'm fine with following the British approach or the American approach, but I suspect W3C has its own rule so that things are consistent across specs. Searching w3.org for an answer, I don't see a statement, but things seem to be written in American English. I find far more instances of "color" than "colour", and I see that the document license [1] uses the sentence " This version licenses Code Components under the W3C Software License <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software>." I found that the HTML WG dealt with this in 2009 and the editor said they were supposed to be following American English [2]. [1] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/doc-license [2] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6763 On 4/12/16 2:44 PM, Lewis S Robinson wrote: > In response to Renato, > > it may, or may not be the case that the English have played a language > game on Americans, you have not noticed, and it has led to a great > deal of confusion.. > > Kindly consider the definitions that pop up on google.uk > <http://google.uk> when the following URIs are entered > -- > https://www.google.co.uk/#q=licence > -- > https://www.google.co.uk/#q=license > > You see, in my humble opinion, and as far as I can understand, there > is a fundamental and pivotal difference between someone who grants a > licence, and the person who is then in possession of a license. > > Lewis. -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 18:55:52 UTC