I just figured it was one of those words spelt differently in American English, which most RFCs etc are written in. (British English native here.)

> (British English native here.)

That's why you spelled 'spelled': spelt :D

Har, this reminds me of an old bit that nicely distills both the mindset and spelling differences across the pond.

UK native, upon seeing the word "color" thinks: "Aha, US spelling!"

US native, upon seeing the word "colour" thinks: "Aha, a typo!"

I (not GP but also native BrE) reckon I use ~lled transitively and ~lt intransitively. I'm not aware of/haven't found anything to make a case for that though.

(Edit: or perhaps it's more about active/passive voice? Thinking particularly about burnt/burned.)

It's taken to an extreme by some thicker accented (dialected?) people around where I grew up though - an' so I turnt [turned] round (right-right round) an' said to 'im [...]!

It's a bit infuriating when English isn't your native language because I could never remember the right spelling.

I think I can take it on behalf of Americans and we'll just make "referer" a US spelling like we did with "thru".

The internet may help achieve what centuries of attempted English spelling reform has failed to do: simplification of spelling. There are two competing forces at play:

- readily available spell checkers

- the international interplay of ideas

The former stabilizes spelling, the latter says "screw it, through is spelled thru, I made up yeet, and emoji are valid grammar". But also grammar and spelling Nazis.

My money is on fluidity of language.