Re: Spelling of "cachable"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Scott Lawrence: "Re: 301/302"
• Previous message: Scott Lawrence: "Re: Last-Modified in chunked footer"
• Maybe in reply to: Jeffrey Mogul: "Spelling of "cachable""

Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
> Of course.  But the reason why we all agree about "referer" is
> that there is a standard spelling, and the word (according to
> the OED, again) dates from 1683 -- long enough to have made it
> into the recent releases of our spelling checkers.  As far as
> I know, neither "cachable" nor "cacheable" has been used before
> the computer age, and we need to make a judgement call.

Since the discussion continues, here's my $0.02 (1.3p?): it should be
cacheable, coz cachable ruins the pronounciation (catchable? cackable?
or like the ch in "loch"?). Plus, I have a very good instinct for
correct English spelling - I almost never get it wrong (typos
notwithstanding), and my instinct says "cacheable".

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache

• Next message: Scott Lawrence: "Re: 301/302"
• Previous message: Scott Lawrence: "Re: Last-Modified in chunked footer"
• Maybe in reply to: Jeffrey Mogul: "Spelling of "cachable""