Re: British or American spelling in IETF docs

That would work too and, having learned some of the predecessor
Loglan years ago, I'd even have a head start.  Or perhaps we
could make it author's choice between the two and forbid
everything else, perhaps favoring one when updating a document
written in the other.

--On Sunday, 09 August, 2026 09:27 -0700 Marc Petit-Huguenin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Even better: Lojban, a constructed language based on predicate
> logic that comes with a formal grammar (in BNF).
> 
> On 8/9/26 9:10 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Sure, Corinne.  I suppose that makes a case for Esperanto on
>> the grounds that it would probably discriminate equally
>> against almost everyone in this community, is no one's first
>> language, and is relatively easy to learn.  We could, of
>> course, set considerations about a better Internet aside
>> while people who wanted to contribute to the IETF learned it
>> and should not worry about anyone who, rather than learn it,
>> dropped out.  And, of course, anyone who thought reading and
>> understanding RFCs (and any other IETF work) would need to
>> learn it too... and would immediately do that rather than
>> moving on.  
>> 
>> Did you have a better plan in mind?
>> 
>>    john
>> 
>> 
>> --On Sunday, 09 August, 2026 09:23 +0200 Corinne Cath
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Would or would this not be the right moment to bring up the
>>> imperialism of having to do RFCs in English to begin with?
>>> — and now back to your regular Sunday programming :p
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>