Firefox is an open-source, Wiki-style, product that costs you and me nothing. It catches typo's, and it's correct much of the time. That can't always be said about what appears in many posts from people using the www.

My older Webster, which I've had since the mid-50's, clearly contains the word inaccessible, and does not list the "un..." version. My newer one doesn't either. Several www-based dictionaries seem to accept either form.

My '72 Webster has both versions of the color, grey and gray. Right now, Firefox is complaining that grey is flawed.

I don't know what the popular spelling of this color in Britain might be, but here, at least since 1957, either has been acceptable.

I have noticed that Firefox complains about words I know to be spelled correctly, and accepts some that I know to be incorrect, and have verified that. Unfortunately, it was written by folks who didn't learn proper spelling because their teachers figured everything would be spell-checked within a few years. They didn't figure that the folks writing the spell-checkers wouldn't know how to proof the database.

I do not know that one can trust anything found on the www any longer, as it appears no effort is made to ensure things presented there are true and correct. It's too bad.

One example ... When I was looking for a primary source for a definition of Manchester encoding, I found that the vast majority of sources in agreement with one another were, in fact, incorrect, at least if IEEE 802.3 is to be believed.

One thing I've learned over the years, particularly the past 15 or so, is that the newer something is, the less likely it is that you can rely on it.

RE