Fix implementors spelling

ome · Aug 30, 2024 · 418f58c · 418f58c
1 parent 7848ff4
commit 418f58c
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 2 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions.
diff --git a/rfc/0/index.md b/rfc/0/index.md
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ interpreted as described in IETF RFC 2119.
 
 * **editors**: those authored specifications. Note: this terminology
   differs from that in [RFC-1][7] and the website and specifications have been updated to reflect this change.
-* **implementors**: those who maintain a library or client which implements specs (see below)
+* **Implementers**: those who maintain a library or client which implements specs (see below)
 * **developer community**: those who build tools that are expected to support NGFFs (e.g., napari, BDV, Viv)
 * **[the ngff group][8]**: those who have actively signed up for calls, feedback, etc.
 * and, of course, the wider community of users.

diff --git a/rfc/1/index.md b/rfc/1/index.md
@@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ It is also strongly encouraged that for each specification change, the [ome-ngff
 
 No implementation is currently considered “reference”, though **Editors** may decide that more implementations or a particular are required depending on the complexity of the RFC.
 
-This policy does not yet specify whether parts of an RFC may be considered _optional_ and therefore omitted from implementations. RFC **Authors** SHOULD provide guidance where possible for **Implementors** on required and optional sections of an RFC until there is a normative policy.
+This policy does not yet specify whether parts of an RFC may be considered _optional_ and therefore omitted from implementations. RFC **Authors** SHOULD provide guidance where possible for **Implementers** on required and optional sections of an RFC until there is a normative policy.
 
 ### RFC Versions