[ENH] Clarify that BIDS specification is in American English #1439
Conversation
"Explicit is better than implicit." and question of the spelling does come up from time to time, and ATM I observe BEPs prepared by European Colleagues are using British English in their documents. Making it explicit would help to minimize possible tensions and required later work to prepare contributions into acceptable state.
Codecov ReportPatch coverage has no change and project coverage change:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1439 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.90% 88.01% +0.11%
==========================================
Files 14 14
Lines 1273 1268 -5
==========================================
- Hits 1119 1116 -3
+ Misses 154 152 -2 see 1 file with indirect coverage changes Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Co-authored-by: Stefan Appelhoff <stefan.appelhoff@mailbox.org>
|
Was this agreed by the SC? Could we get one more approval @guiomar @robertoostenveld @CPernet? Along with #1444, it seems these could go in either the spec or the contributing guide. I'm slightly in favor of having spec-writing "principles" in the contributing guide as they have no effect on the interpretation of the spec or a dataset, but I would not attempt to block this. |
|
''I observe BEPs prepared by European Colleagues are using British English in their documents.'' yeh, if that was up to me I take British anytime ... but since you guys have way more contribution and besides India, the rest of Asia uses American English I guess you win -- SC has not discussed it, but it has my vote, so with Ariel that makes 3/5 |
I am fine with this going into the spec, but I see the point of why putting this into the contributing guide would make sense (even more so than it perhaps would for #1444) https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md If nobody objects within the next couple of days, I will transfer this change to the contributing guide and merge it. |
|
I have a crazy suggestion: can we have it in both? (I usually don't like duplication but I may make an exception for this one.) |
|
I would vote strongly against |
"Explicit is better than implicit." and the question of the spelling and syntax does come up from time to time, and ATM I observe BEPs prepared by European Colleagues are using British English in their documents.
Making it explicit would help to minimize possible tensions and required later work to prepare contributions into acceptable state.
I placed it first in the common principles since IMHO it is the shortest and most "basic" principle to agree upon before going into which words to use etc.