Typos

[elharo]

Including a lot of misuse of i.e. and e.g.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR corrects various typos and improves clarity in documentation and comments across multiple files. The changes primarily involve proper usage of "i.e." vs "e.g." and fixing spelling errors.

• Corrected misuse of "i.e." (that is) with "e.g." (for example) where examples are being provided
• Fixed various spelling errors like "plateform" → "platform", "ommissions" → "omissions", and "claspath" → "classpath"
• Improved sentence clarity and grammar in documentation

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 12 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
src/site/fml/faq.fml	Fixed "i.e." to "e.g." usage and corrected "process" to "processed"
src/site/apt/examples/test-javadocs.apt.vm	Fixed verb agreement "use" to "uses"
src/site/apt/examples/links-configuration.apt.vm	Changed "i.e." to appropriate alternatives and "url" to "URL"
src/site/apt/examples/fix-javadocs.apt.vm	Corrected "i.e." to "e.g." and improved sentence structure
src/site/apt/examples/alternate-javadoc-tool.apt.vm	Fixed spelling errors "plateform" and "environnement"
src/site/apt/examples/alternate-doclet.apt.vm	Corrected "ommissions" to "omissions"
src/site/apt/examples/aggregate-nofork.apt.vm	Fixed "lifecyles" to "lifecycles" and "WDSL" to "WSDL"
src/site/apt/examples/aggregate-dependency-sources.apt.vm	Corrected "configuraiton" to "configuration"
src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/javadoc/JavadocUtil.java	Fixed "claspath" to "classpath" in comment
src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/javadoc/JavadocReport.java	Changed "i.e." to "e.g." in comment
src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/javadoc/AbstractJavadocMojo.java	Improved grammar and capitalization in comments

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[hboutemy]

@elharo it seems this PR broke CI

[elharo]

@hboutemy Are you sure it was this commit? Locally I see it passing at 77a3bed (this one) and failing at 9333db1 (the branch protection PR) though I can't immediately see how either one would have likely caused this failure

[elharo]

And now they're both passing locally. Maybe it's a flaky test?

[elharo]

@hboutemy Yes, looks like a flaky integration test. #1239 has now failed once and passed once. If it fails again, we should disable or deflake it. But I don;t think this PR is at fault.