On 1/8/21 11:29 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 1/7/21 5:55 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> > > Take a look at > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=acknowledgment%2Cacknowledgement&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3 > > and compare American English vs British English using the drop-down. > > When I inherited man-pages in 2004, it was a hodge-podge mix of > American vs British spelling. My native spelling is the latter, > but I value consistency and felt that things needed to be > standardized on one or other, and in computing, American is the > norm so that is what I settled on.hodge-podge > > I'm largely at piece with American spelling these days (it > is the spelling I use in most of my writing), but I guess > the one point that still bothers me are the American spellings > "acknowledgment" and "judgment". They just feel wrong. Yup > > However, I now learned from the Ngrams that even in British > English, the spelling without "e" was historically the norm. > So it seems that it is British English that has changed, > not American English! > > I was about to say that I must decline this patch. And then > I thought I'd take a look at the POSIX standard. It seems > to largely follow American spelling (e.g., "color", "canceled", > "recognize", "analog").[1] But, it uses "acknowledgement"! > (There are even a couple of instances of "judgement" in > the standard.) It seems like others like to have the > extra "e' in those words... > > So, I'm not sure what to do with this patch. Hey Michael, D'oh, I thought it was a typo! :-) American English surprises me. Yes I prefer American English, but I've also learn_ed_ British at school, (and learnt American through the internet), so I have a weird hodge-podge in my head too :p I guess many people though it was a typo from the data you put. Also see: $ grep -r acknowledgement \ |wc -l; grep: man7/.hostname.7.swp: binary file matches 69 $ grep -r acknowledgment \ |wc -l; 23 Nevertheless, I prefer American too, so I'd invert the patch. What about s/acknowledgement/acknowledgment/? Cheers, Alex > > Thanks, > > Michael > > [1] It's also worth noting that there is a gradual movement > toward American spellings even in British English. > > >> --- >> man7/netlink.7 | 8 ++++---- >> man7/tcp.7 | 10 +++++----- >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/man7/netlink.7 b/man7/netlink.7 >> index 6559d4d96..f10582d79 100644 >> --- a/man7/netlink.7 >> +++ b/man7/netlink.7 >> @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ The message is part of a multipart message terminated by >> .BR NLMSG_DONE . >> T} >> NLM_F_ACK:T{ >> -Request for an acknowledgment on success. >> +Request for an acknowledgement on success. >> T} >> NLM_F_ECHO:T{ >> Echo this request. >> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ For reliable transfer the sender can request an >> acknowledgement from the receiver by setting the >> .B NLM_F_ACK >> flag. >> -An acknowledgment is an >> +An acknowledgement is an >> .B NLMSG_ERROR >> packet with the error field set to 0. >> The application must generate acknowledgements for >> @@ -494,11 +494,11 @@ is sent to user space via an ancillary data. >> .BR NETLINK_CAP_ACK " (since Linux 4.2)" >> .\" commit 0a6a3a23ea6efde079a5b77688541a98bf202721 >> .\" Author: Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@xxxxxxxxx> >> -The kernel may fail to allocate the necessary room for the acknowledgment >> +The kernel may fail to allocate the necessary room for the acknowledgement >> message back to user space. >> This option trims off the payload of the original netlink message. >> The netlink message header is still included, so the user can guess from the >> -sequence number which message triggered the acknowledgment. >> +sequence number which message triggered the acknowledgement. >> .SH VERSIONS >> The socket interface to netlink first appeared Linux 2.2. >> .PP >> diff --git a/man7/tcp.7 b/man7/tcp.7 >> index d6836f3a8..8b78cb6e1 100644 >> --- a/man7/tcp.7 >> +++ b/man7/tcp.7 >> @@ -264,22 +264,22 @@ meaning that the option is disabled. >> Control the Appropriate Byte Count (ABC), defined in RFC 3465. >> ABC is a way of increasing the congestion window >> .RI ( cwnd ) >> -more slowly in response to partial acknowledgments. >> +more slowly in response to partial acknowledgements. >> Possible values are: >> .RS >> .IP 0 3 >> increase >> .I cwnd >> -once per acknowledgment (no ABC) >> +once per acknowledgement (no ABC) >> .IP 1 >> increase >> .I cwnd >> -once per acknowledgment of full sized segment >> +once per acknowledgement of full sized segment >> .IP 2 >> allow increase >> .I cwnd >> -by two if acknowledgment is >> -of two segments to compensate for delayed acknowledgments. >> +by two if acknowledgement is >> +of two segments to compensate for delayed acknowledgements. >> .RE >> .TP >> .IR tcp_abort_on_overflow " (Boolean; default: disabled; since Linux 2.4)" >> > > -- Alejandro Colomar Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/
