Oxford English -ize and ization
philwareham opened this issue · 14 comments
Since we are moving to Oxford English as our default version of English language going forward, we need to be consistent with use of -ize and -zation.
These should be used in preference to -ise and -isation, apart from for a small subset of words, see here for more information on exempt words.
There may be a debate to be had as to whether a British English localisation uses the above or the more common -ise and -isation - both of which are valid in Britain.
The OED is only for Textpattern's brand development. So an British English translation would be open to use '-ise', etc. Two different contexts.
I am changing the use of en-GB as default language in Textpattern 4.7 in favour of en (World English), as can be seen here - and background story here
Therefore as en will not be tied to a country specifically, I've decided it will be Oxford English as default, as is used by the ISO, UN and other international bodies - in leu of there not really being a 'World English' that everyone agrees on.
Hope that is agreeable. :)
I don't see a problem, though any site that actually followed OE should probably use a custom lang="en-GB-oxendict". So the textpattern.com site, for example. This is separate from default Txp core, which makes sense to be neutral at first.
Language declaration is one of those things that few people give much thought to, regardless, if they're even aware of it at all.
Maybe. Anyway, I don't want Australian Textpattern sites to state that they are en-GB language, because they are not. Don't know if that also affects country-specific SERPs but it may.
I don't understand. Do you need translations for this first and default article?
Using en alone is fine, of course, but if you're concern is Australia (or Canada, or South Africa, etc) then I think you're misunderstanding the point of the en-GB-oxendict declaration. The en-GB part of that is not to say you're following a country convention, but rather that the Oxford English Dictionary is a British-sourced reference, which it is. And since another one of your concerns, as stated in the head post, is being consistent about using -ise vs. -ize, the declaration puts that question to end by stating what source (the Oxford Dictionary's version of words spellings) ends the debate. Of course, a style guide would also make that clear, but the declaration is just a way to tie all ends together.
If you're talking about translations to French, you don't have to worry about anything here. What we're talking about is words having two possible spellings (e.g. color and colour, organize and organise, etc). As far as translation goes, it's the same words, you just have to translate to the French equivalent as it's spelled in French.
If you could write it as en-oxendict, that would be the ideal, but I'm doubtful that's an acceptable declaration. Don't know.
Sorry, I thought I'd made it clear that 'en' will be the default pophelp/textpack base now, and that will use Oxford English rules. GB subset would use British rules (so -sation instead of -zation for example). Australia would use 'en' until such time as a specific Australian English textpack is made.
The Textpattern.com site and docs site will use oxendict.
My mistake.
@cara-tm, at this point I don't even know what we're talking about. But, I don't plan on translating anything.
I don't understand. Do you need translations for this first and default article?
@cara-tm I referenced this issue because I spotted a typo in the default article excerpt. There is no request for translation at this time, though I do not know for certain if a future article translation is required.
Done.