>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:00:22 +1000,
>>>>> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm not going to talk about the document itself.
>> EDITORIAL COMMENTS
>>
>> 15. this draft uses the term "Neighbour", but for this particular term,
>> I guess we should stick to the US standard "Neighbor", because the
>> base documents such as RFC2461 use the latter, and people may search
>> for related documents with (e.g.) "grep -i neighbor rfc*.txt".
>>
>> (In this sense, I don't care about "behaviour":-)
(snip)
> Is it really important to have the text generated by one
> English speaking author (in this case an Australian)
> homologated to another dialect?
I don't think it that important (rather, I think it's a very minor
issue), so I can personally live with either approach. In particular,
if the author uses his own convention on purpose, I'll respect the
decision. My point is that it is more reader-friendly to provide
consistency on wording usage as much as possible among documents in a
same single technical category (in this case ND).
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
