Apologies for my misuse\misunderstand of the appropriate terms. I'm not sure if i agree (or possible understand again) what you mean by deviating english? If there are rules or notations, they don't create a new form of english, they just restrict the context of the implied meaning of the words.
To bring it back to the current case, i'm not sure that it is appropriate to specify a language extension for the document. This would imply that there MAY be new words, spellings or meanings in the resulting text and that just isn't the case. There is also no registration of the language extension and hence no way for someone to lookup any potential deviations. Additionally, i don't think a specification, especially one targeted at a global audience, meant for translation and to stand as a pillar in time, should have any individual 'personality', especially as personality is culturally constrained and temporal in nature. I don't take this too seriously, but then again it doesn't really scream 'professionalism' to me.... thanks, cameron jones On 10/06/2011, at 2:22 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > 10.6.2011 15:53, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote: > >> For a standards committee, it's funny no-one can even agree on the >> english language :) > > The W3C or its working groups are not standards committees, no matter how > much they might present themselves that way. There is actually a standard on > HTML (ISO HTML), but few people know about it and even fewer care about it; > it's an uninteresting minor modification of HTML 4. > > Non-funnily, standards committees often agree on the (English) language to a > surprising degree. They have their own rules for things and notations, > sometimes deviating from everyone else's English. > > -- > Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ >
