From 3502600344fb2fcf4892c4461d2bd2eba8a23d44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: appaji <>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:42:03 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] ispelled

---
 LDP/ldpwn/20051101.xml | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/LDP/ldpwn/20051101.xml b/LDP/ldpwn/20051101.xml
index 3c6a4ddb..bbc723a8 100644
--- a/LDP/ldpwn/20051101.xml
+++ b/LDP/ldpwn/20051101.xml
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ checkup.  Things to do are: </para>
 
 <itemizedlist>
 
-  <listitem><para>Check timestamp on all mirrors
+  <listitem><para>Check time-stamp on all mirrors
   (http://www.tldp.org/mirrors.html), all URLs should have a
   timestamp.txt in the top-level directory.  </para></listitem>
 
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ checkup.  Things to do are: </para>
 current situation <ulink
 url="http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:9693:200510:claiepedajakajhoajgg"
 />.  The revised version is available for comment and David posted a
-verson <ulink
+version <ulink
 url="http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:9761:200510:ngajkeenpiioblmendee"
 /> asking if discuss list is OK with it.  </para>
 
@@ -84,8 +84,8 @@ could revive LinuxDoc.  </para>
 <para>LDP or TLDP</para>
 
 <para>David Lawyer, while discussing the draft of the Introduction to
-the LDP Manifesto, said <quote>we did change was our url from
-linuxdoc.org to tldp.org.  But the old url still works (I just tried
+the LDP Manifesto, said <quote>we did change was our URL from
+linuxdoc.org to tldp.org.  But the old URL still works (I just tried
 it).  So I'm in favor of continuing to use LDP and to not object if
 people call us TLDP.  LDP has a lot of name recognition in printed
 books.  If you look at our doc, there's several times more mention of