Nit: "Constructable" vs. "Constructible"

[tomayac]

I realize this is a bit of a nit and probably arguable, but constructible seems to be used a lot more frequently than constructable, and the Oxford dictionary even redirects searches for "constructable" to "constructible" (note the linked and final URL of this search). I suggest spelling the two occurrences (one is the actual spec's name) of "constructable" to now read "constructible". For example, #24 also uses this spelling.

[developit]

Indeed - I've been moving things over to "Constructible", since that is the US English spelling and generally specs go that route.

[rakina]

Thanks! It came up previously on #71. I think we should make the change, but @tabatkins - WDYT?

[tabatkins]

English is very... wiggly on -able vs -ible. The general rule (with plenty of exceptions) is that you use -able when the root (possibly with a silent -e tacked back on) is a full word on its own (buildable, foldable, comparable, etc), and -ible when the root isn't a full word (edible, etc.)

But it does appear that "constructible" is one of those exceptions, where English speakers have overall decided to use -ible in contravention of the general rule. That said, "constructable" is recognized as an alternate spelling. (Unlike most -able/-ible words, which definitely have only one accepted spelling.)

So in conclusion, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(I'd care more if the word actually showed up in an API, but this is just a spec name.)

[tomayac]

To be honest I only noticed because Google Docs gave the word the "red curly underline you misspelled me" treatment. FWIW, my machine is set to speak en-US.

[domenic]

IMO this is a lot of churn and change for no real gain. Especially if the spec is going to merge into CSSOM, it's better to just leave as-is.

[developit]

I've reverted the update post and demo to use "Constructable"