BritCSS is a humorous CSS framework that replaces American English spellings in CSS properties and values with their British English equivalents. It aims to provide a more "civilised" (British English spelling) styling experience, swapping terms like color for colour and center for centre. While functionally identical to standard CSS, it serves primarily as a lighthearted commentary on the dominance of American English in web development.
The blog post explores surnames derived from nicknames that have fallen out of common usage. It details how many last names originated as descriptive monikers referring to physical characteristics (like "Little," "Short," "Red," or "Black"), personality traits ("Good," "Wise," "Proud"), or occupations ("Cook," "Smith"). The post highlights the evolution of these once-common nicknames into hereditary surnames, illustrating how a person's defining characteristic or profession could become a family identifier passed down through generations. Now, these surnames offer a glimpse into the past, preserving nicknames that are rarely, if ever, used today.
HN users generally enjoyed the article about surnames derived from lost nicknames. Several commenters offered further examples, like "Micklejohn" (big John) and "Shanks" (long legs). Some discussed the difficulty of tracing surname origins, acknowledging that sometimes assumed etymologies are incorrect. One highlighted the surprising prevalence of nicknames as surnames, speculating that perhaps such names were more common in the past or that they were bestowed with more permanence. Another appreciated the nuance that not all -kin surnames are diminutives, citing "Wilkin" (desirable) as an example. The concept of "lost" nicknames resonated with users, prompting reflections on the fading of descriptive nicknames in modern times.
Summary of Comments ( 57 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43122398
Hacker News users generally found BritCSS humorous, but impractical. Several commenters pointed out the inherent problems with trying to localize CSS, given its global nature and the established convention of using American English. Some suggested it would fragment the community and create unnecessary complexity in workflows. One commenter jokingly suggested expanding the idea to include other localized CSS versions, like Australian English, further highlighting the absurdity of the project. Others questioned the motivation behind targeting American English specifically, suggesting it stemmed from a place of anti-American sentiment. There's also discussion about the technical limitations and challenges of such an undertaking, like handling existing libraries and frameworks. While some appreciated the satire, the consensus was that BritCSS wasn't a serious proposal.
The Hacker News post titled "BritCSS: Fixes CSS to use non-American English" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43122398) has generated a number of comments discussing the project's purpose, implications, and overall reception. Several commenters found the project humorous, viewing it as satire or a lighthearted jab at American English's dominance in technical fields.
Some comments questioned the practical value of such a tool, pointing out the relatively small number of differences between American and British English spellings in CSS and the potential for confusion or incompatibility with existing tools and codebases. They argued that the effort required to implement and maintain such a change outweighs any perceived benefits. For example, one commenter highlighted the global nature of software development and the established convention of using American English spellings in code, suggesting that deviating from this norm could lead to unnecessary complexity.
Others expressed concerns about the broader implications of localization efforts in programming languages, raising the possibility of fragmentation and difficulties in collaboration across different linguistic communities. The idea that such localization might extend beyond spelling to syntax or other language features was met with skepticism.
Some commenters engaged in a discussion about the history and prevalence of American English in technical documentation and code, with some suggesting that this dominance is simply a matter of historical accident and convention.
A few comments touched on the technical aspects of the BritCSS project, discussing the feasibility of implementing such transformations and the potential impact on performance.
Despite some initial amusement, the overall sentiment seems to lean towards skepticism regarding the practical utility of BritCSS. The commenters generally acknowledge the humorous intent but question its long-term viability and potential to create more problems than it solves. No one explicitly championed the project's adoption for serious development work.