Speaking as a "Yank", I don't mind James's use of british spellings.
My position is: If its printed in the U.S. (by the GNU Press or other) then it can be changed accordingly when its (hopefully) copyedited before printing. Related to that, I think the position statement should work towards consistency. I use `ispell -l | sort -u' on large Emacs buffers and would prefer to use one or the other dictionary for find.texi. Unless, of there's a way to combine dictionaries with Ispell. Actually, `ispell -l | ispell -d british -l | sort -u' would probably work for me. I suppose my "consistency" proposal has been solved by a technical solution... Cheers, /a On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, James Youngman wrote: > Perhaps the idea didn't occur to the authors of maintain.texi. I > wouldn't want to push the issue. Anyway, we're teetering toward a > position statement on spelling in the findutils manual, and so here it > is: - > > 1. I spell things the British way, and would not be able to reliably > spell things the American way all the time. This means that as > long as it is I who writes the bulk of the new documentation, > British spellings will trickle into the document. > > 2. I will accept patches with spelling corrections, subject to the usual > restrictions on copyright assignment. Such spelling corrections can > be American-English-flavored or rest-of-the-World-English-flavoured. > Either would be accepted. > > 3. Contributions of useful documentation to findutils will be accepted > in any language or dialect (subject to any requriement for a > copyright assignment and/or waiver), though my ability to maintain > documentation in non-European languages is nonexistent. > > James. _______________________________________________ Bug-findutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-findutils
