Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Can we change Usage Patterns to Patterns of Use throughout? #1555

Closed
TallTed opened this issue Aug 27, 2024 · 7 comments
Closed

Can we change Usage Patterns to Patterns of Use throughout? #1555

TallTed opened this issue Aug 27, 2024 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
editorial Purely editorial changes to the specification. pr exists

Comments

@TallTed
Copy link
Member

TallTed commented Aug 27, 2024

I know, there are lots of hrefs and [=...=] to change as well as the visible text. And probably some number of other documents that we cannot change (now, if not ever), but which can be supported by secondary <a id=""> elements. (I think there are some special ReSpec things related to this, but cannot immediately recall the syntax.)

Motivation is that use is generally preferred over the almost perfectly synonymous usage, largely because it substantially lowers the reading level.

@davidlehn
Copy link
Contributor

@msporny msporny added the editorial Purely editorial changes to the specification. label Aug 28, 2024
@longpd
Copy link
Contributor

longpd commented Aug 28, 2024

+1 for this simple change

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Sep 1, 2024

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2024-08-28

  • no resolutions were taken
View the transcript

3.3. Can we change Usage Patterns to Patterns of Use throughout? (issue vc-data-model#1555)

See github issue vc-data-model#1555.

Brent Zundel: question - can we change 'Usage Patterns' to 'Patterns of Use' throughout the spec?

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: See usage pattern ngram.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: pretty simple and straightforward, 'use' is preferred over 'usage', it's one of those words that seems more sophisticated, but is not, leads to more confusion.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: See another usage pattern ngram.

Brent Zundel: folks, if you think this is a good idea or not, let us know.

Manu Sporny: +1 to making the change, it'll be easy.

Brent Zundel: we also need someone to volunteer to do the work.

Manu Sporny: I'll do it, should be an easy change.

Brent Zundel: we also have 1 PR.

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Sep 4, 2024

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2024-09-04

  • no resolutions were taken
View the transcript

3.1. Can we change Usage Patterns to Patterns of Use throughout? (issue vc-data-model#1555)

See github issue vc-data-model#1555.

Brent Zundel: we will look at 1555.
… a question from TallTed.
… can we say "patterns of use" instead of "usage patterns".

Manu Sporny: I said last time I would. I just haven't gotten to it yet.

Brent Zundel: thank you all for the conversation and bigbluehat for scribing today.
… see you on the special topic call at 5pm ET and 2pm ET tomorrow.

Ivan Herman: rssagent, draft minutes.

Geunhyung Kim: quit.


@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Sep 11, 2024

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2024-09-11

  • no resolutions were taken
View the transcript

3.7. Can we change Usage Patterns to Patterns of Use throughout? (issue vc-data-model#1555)

See github issue vc-data-model#1555.

Brent Zundel: next is 1555, last time we talked nobody objected to change "usage patterns" to "patterns of use".
… waiting for that PR.

Manu Sporny: yes, I will do that PR :).

Manu Sporny: (or anyone else can too! ) :).

Manu Sporny: last week was controller document focused, this weekend hopefully can get back to VCDM queue.

Brent Zundel: editorial change, straightforward, anyone can take this PR.

Will Abramson: I can take that one.

@msporny
Copy link
Member

msporny commented Sep 15, 2024

PR #1561 has been raised to address this issue. This issue will be closed once PR #1561 has been merged.

@msporny
Copy link
Member

msporny commented Oct 5, 2024

PR #1561 and PR #1569 have been merged, closing.

@msporny msporny closed this as completed Oct 5, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
editorial Purely editorial changes to the specification. pr exists
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants