3 ms·

I think the RFC pronunciation guide > the same as the English word "jot". Only makes sense if your dialect has the cot-caught merger[0] [0] https://en.wikipe

• OJFord 3y ago
  I don't, so perhaps I'm just doomed not to understand, but I still don't get that? I would never pronounce it 'jaught' either (nor know what someone meant if they did).
• airstrike 3y ago
  Only barely makes sense, you mean. And only if you squint...
• gnabgib 3y ago
  You skipped an important part of the quote from RFC-7519[0] (later replaced by two RFCs[1],[2] without the strange suggestion): > The suggested pronunciation of JWT is the same as the English word "jot". Replaced by RFC-7797[1] and RFC-8725[2], neither of which have the pronunciation suggestion. There was also an errata about the pronunciation line[3], which probably explains the mismatch. [0]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519 [1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7797 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7797 [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8725 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8725 [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5648 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5648
  • nmadden 3y ago
    Those RFCs don’t replace 7519, they are extensions and best practices. “Jot” is still indeed the intended pronunciation, whether you like it or not.