On 2015-09-27 23:06, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 5:00 PM, James Darnley <james.darn...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 2015-09-27 17:43, Stefano Sabatini wrote: >>> On date Sunday 2015-09-27 15:28:50 +0200, James Darnley encoded: >>>> On 2015-09-27 14:37, Stefano Sabatini wrote: >>>>> + <p> >>>>> + TNS still needs some polishing, but has the potential to reduce >>>>> coding >>>>> + artifacts by applying noise shaping in the temporal domain (something >>>> ^^^^^^^^^ >>>> artefacts >>> >>> I think both "artifact" and "artefact" are valid, but fixed. >> >> After consulting some references I have discovered that "artifact" with >> an 'i' is the usual American spelling. Sorry about the noise. > > If we are indeed following American spelling, then I missed something > - somewhere "colour" should be "color". This one is a relatively more > serious one to consider (although both are minor nits), since > http://grammarist.com/spelling/artefact-artifact/ shows that both were > used in the UK until recently.
Oh typical... > The British preference for artefact is a new development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
