Follow-up Comment #11, bug #61371 (project groff): [comment #10 comment #10:] > ... > Keith's claim that "decimal separator" is "invalid terminology" is > contradicted by Wikipedia's extensive, and extensively annotated, entry for the term <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator>, > ... Wikipedia is *not* authoritative. Besides, the documentation in question *is* in the the English language, so English-specific terminology is appropriate.
*Neither* the Oxford Dictionary of UK English <https://www.lexico.com/en>, (formerly the Oxford Dictionary of World English, and AFAIK, authoritative throughout the English-speaking world, outside the sphere of influence of the USA), *nor* [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary Merriam-Webster], (authoritative in the US English-speaking world), offers *any* definition for the term "decimal separator"; *both* define "decimal point", (with a more comprehensive definition in Merriam-Webster). POSIX.1-2017 <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/localeconv.html> consistently uses the "decimal point" terminology, (with "separator" *only* applied to thousands digit grouping). Nonetheless, if you wish to engender a impression of utter technical ineptitude, by all means adopt this asinine change in terminology ... I really couldn't care less, any more. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61371> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
