comments on the draft - 2

[Addison Phillips [wM]]

Well... I spelled it right the first few times and the other way when entering a response to Peter's comments (and who knows, maybe somewhere else). My spell checker (MS Word 2000) thinks its fine both ways, so of course I didn't notice---and probably never would have, except for John's kind note.

Humbly,

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods | Delivering Global Business Visibility
http://www.webMethods.com
Chair, W3C Internationalization (I18N) Working Group
Chair, W3C-I18N-WG, Web Services Task Force
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mrc at ndcms.cac.washington.edu 
> [mailto:mrc at ndcms.cac.washington.edu]On Behalf Of Mark Crispin
> Sent: 2004年6月11日 14:23
> To: Addison Phillips [wM]
> Cc: jcowan at reutershealth.com; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: comments on the draft - 2
> 
> 
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Addison Phillips [wM] wrote:
> > Annoyingly (or perhaps pleasingly), it is spelled both ways in the 
> > document. I should note that both are in common use.
> 
> I checked multiple dictionaries, and they all list "supersede" as the 
> primary entry, with "supercede" as an acceptable variant.  The exception 
> is OED, which claims that "supercede" is "now erroneous".
> 
> I don't know how that judgement of "erroneous" came about, and it 
> seems to 
> me to be a bit bogus.  Nevertheless, there seems to be concensus that 
> "supersede" is the primary spelling.  A document should certainly not use 
> both spellings.
> 
> -- Mark --
> 
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.