[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: core components analysis, or what is this "Oxford English?"
Mary Kay Blantz wrote: "I'm not sure what you're saying about Oxford English. We EWG folks always use that, and I would assume we will do the same for the joint X12/EWG committee. If our current documents just say 'English' then I think we need to change them to say 'Oxford English.'" Dear Mary Kay: I had just told Hartmut Hermes there is no requirement anywhere that "Oxford English" spelling be used. Section 2.3, Globalization, of the ebXML Requirements Specification Version 1.0 of 12 May 2000 simply states "To simplify development efforts, all work shall use English." Not only is there no ebXML requirement to use "Oxford English," I don't think such a thing exists. Maybe it's an urban legend in the standards community that you have to use this "Oxford English." I don't think I'm being pedantic here - after all, I had just explained on Monday that there's really only one English language, regardless of the minor variations in spelling. There is something called the "Oxford English Dictionary," published by the Oxford University Press, at http://www.oed.com/. Nowhere do they talk about "Oxford English." If the damn thing takes 20 volumes, they surely can manage to fit in the American spellings (making them "Oxford English" spellings, as demanded by Hartmut), used by most speakers of English as a mother tongue. So, we're free to use "colour" or "color," "rationalise" or "rationalize." Hopefully, there will be some consistency in the names of things stuck in the registry and repository to make lookup easier. But when devising the specifications, there are far more important things to worry about in these language wars, like avoiding the use of "billion," which is a thousand times more in Britain than what we think it is here in America. If British spellings are to be mandated, then let somebody in TR&P know - they use "recognized," "organizations," "organized," "realize," "utilize," and "authorized" all over the place - which are obvious Americanizations. Or is that "Americanisations?" The precious ebXML Requirements Specification uses the American spellings. Even the Rosetta Stone of ebXML, ISO 11179, which I see referred to all the time, uses American. As does the ISO - the International Organization for Standardization - itself. William J. Kammerer FORESIGHT Corp. 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy. Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305 +1 614 791-1600 Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/ "Commerce for a New World"
Powered by eList eXpress LLC