-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
document adherence to Oxford English Dictionary spelling #1649
Comments
I don't have the actual references at hand, but what we discovered back then was that the ISO guidelnes permitted standards to follow the OED conventions and that was it was also acceptable to Ecma. So we adopted those conventions. |
I agree that we should document editorial preferences & decisions, but I'm doubtful that we should do so within the spec. Certainly, it makes sense to state an editorial choice in the spec if doing so would help a reader understand the spec. But I don't think that's true of a lot of "style guide" choices. For things that are less for someone reading the spec and more for someone writing it (i.e., new proposals. PRs), perhaps we could have a new document in the how-we-work repo. |
I'll just leave this, since it is sufficiently meta -- the British Standards Institution (BSI) publishes a standard, BS 0, the "standard for standards", where it literally covers only these 3 items, on page 1, in the introduction (they must come up really often!):
|
I believe it started with ES2015, but at some point we started to follow Oxford English Dictionary spelling conventions. The most noticeable change for me was the renaming of "object initialisers" to "object initializers". @allenwb should know more about this decision. Either way, I think we should document this within the spec, possibly within a new "editorial conventions" section.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: