comments on the draft - 2
Addison Phillips [wM]
aphillips at webmethods.com
Fri Jun 11 23:50:55 CEST 2004
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.
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods | Delivering Global Business Visibility
Chair, W3C Internationalization (I18N) Working Group
Chair, W3C-I18N-WG, Web Services Task Force
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 --
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
More information about the Ietf-languages