Re: British or American spelling in IETF docs

The problem is that in everyday speech British, Irish, Australian and New Zealand English is littered with subtleties.

Even insults are not always what they seem - Australian and Irish English are noted for their richness in the use of derogatory language which is actually anything-but…

[cid:FB37EA47-267E-4F24-9F4D-7EFCC1188325]

David

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, 10 August 2026 at 08:42
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: British or American spelling in IETF docs

I didn’t knew that is only about small spelling differences.

This provides a very good rationale for deciding on a single spelling, as I don’t think a standard body wants to have one more chance, if avoidable, of different interpretations, right?

It will be good to know what other SDOs are doing on this. Are they allowing also any english spelling or the document are bound to a single one?

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

> El 10 ago 2026, a las 5:47, Narelle Clark <[email protected]> escribió:
>
> I was happily ignoring this thread, until this statement below...
>
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 at 04:08, Watson Ladd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> We should table this proposal :-P
>>
>
> 'Tabling a proposal' to an Australian, and I believe to an English
> person, means to put it on the table, or agenda, for discussion. To an
> American, it means deferring the discussion.
>
> So I expect you to talk about it, and talk about it now, but the
> Americans expect you won't.
>
> This difference in idiom is more the issue than largely trivial
> differences in spelling. People should write with enough clarity that
> these differences in communication are able to either be clarified in
> the text, or understood when relevant to IETF technical specification.
>
> And please don't get me started on the meaning and usage of 'revert'.
>
>
> Narelle
>
>
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2026 at 11:17 PM Thomas Howe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps we need an RFC defining the English Spelling Negotiation Protocol (ESNP).
>>>
>>> Implementations MUST support American English, SHOULD support British English, and MAY support Oxford English. Authors using “-ize” and “-ise” in the same document MUST be prepared for interoperability failures.
>>>
>>> In the absence of successful negotiation, the default shall be whatever the RFC Editor changes it to.
>>>
>>> IANA considerations: please create a registry for honour/honor, colour/color, and programme/program. :-)
>
> --
>
>
> Narelle
> [email protected]
>


**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C1e4fc2708d904aec841908def6b2dfb0%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C0%7C639219445299412206%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IMddzTd1KvOWqGzz9OGfWWv%2B5%2FetmzJIZPkcm69M5hg%3D&reserved=0<http://www.theipv6company.com/>
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.