[Esip-documentation] acknowledgment vs. acknowledgement

[John Graybeal]

Oops. I’d guess that was unintentional (or a secret UK plot :->). 

It would seem reasonable to me to accept either spelling, though some folks are a bit more rigorous than I am about such things. I can imagine the (we) ESIP Documentation folks might be a little leery of opening ACDD up for a revision, though I think it would be appropriate, so as to avoid creating compliance issues.  

john


---------------------------------------
John Graybeal
jbgraybeal at mindspring.com
linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johngraybeal/

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:14, John Maurer via Esip-documentation <esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
> 
> FYI: The former UDDC convention <http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/thredds/current/netcdf-java/metadata/DataDiscoveryAttConvention.html#acknowledgement_Attribute> required the US spelling of the "acknowledgment" attribute. I see now that your ACDD convention <http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery#Recommended> has changed this to the UK spelling of "acknowledgement" (somewhat needlessly). Just pointing this out in case others still have it the UDDC way like I did, which is no longer compliant.
> Cheers,
> John Maurer
> Data System Engineer
> Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PacIOOS)
> University of Hawaii at Manoa
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-documentation mailing list
> Esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-documentation/attachments/20170120/7bd022e1/attachment.html>