On Wed March 30 2005 13:07, Bob Braden wrote:
For RFC publication, RFC Editor does use a spell checker, which no
doubt has a US bias. We do try for consistency. but we also try to
allow consistent non-US usage. In either case, we are less than perfect,
but we try.
Joe Abley wrote:
*> The "spelling error" comments above are attributed to "The IESG". As
*> someone who learnt to read and write outside the US, I would hope that
*> there's no conscious ambition to enforce the us US English spelling in
*> new documents.
I am responsible for the comments. The "attribution" interpretation
is probably an artifact (or artefact, if you prefer) of
misinterpretation of quoting by Ned's MUA (which did not include an
attribution line, but copied (with one level of quoting) the
attribution line inserted by my MUA). Note that the text included
directly from my comment message has a single '>' attribution mark
(that includes the "IESG" attribution line and my comments) whereas
the material quoted from the IESG ID-announce message (correctly
attributed to "The IESG") has two '>' attribution marks.
For the record, I detected the "errors" while reading the draft
(having made the same "errors" myself in the past) and confirmed
them by two methods:
1. via the "ispell" program
2. by referencing published RFCs (to ensure consistency among the
collection of RFCs)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf