[docs] fix some typos

1) Fixed "prioritised" to "prioritized".
2) Fixed "evangelising" to "evangelizing".

site/content/blog/2016-11-26-frameworks-without-the-framework.md

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Given that, what if the framework *didn't actually run in the browser*? What if,
 
 ## Introducing Svelte
 
-Svelte is a new framework that does exactly that. You write your components using HTML, CSS and JavaScript (plus a few extra bits you can [learn in under 5 minutes](https://v2.svelte.dev/guide)), and during your build process Svelte compiles them into tiny standalone JavaScript modules. By statically analysing the component template, we can make sure that the browser does as little work as possible.
+Svelte is a new framework that does exactly that. You write your components using HTML, CSS and JavaScript (plus a few extra bits you can [learn in under 5 minutes](https://v2.svelte.dev/guide)), and during your build process Svelte compiles them into tiny standalone JavaScript modules. By statically analyzing the component template, we can make sure that the browser does as little work as possible.
 
 The [Svelte implementation of TodoMVC](https://svelte-todomvc.surge.sh/) weighs 3.6kb zipped. For comparison, React plus ReactDOM *without any app code* weighs about 45kb zipped. It takes about 10x as long for the browser just to evaluate React as it does for Svelte to be up and running with an interactive TodoMVC.
 
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Consider interoperability. Want to `npm install cool-calendar-widget` and use it
 
 Or [code splitting](https://twitter.com/samccone/status/797528710085652480). It's a great idea (only load the code the user needs for the initial view, then get the rest later), but there's a problem – even if you only initially serve one React component instead of 100, *you still have to serve React itself*. With Svelte, code splitting can be much more effective, because the framework is embedded in the component, and the component is tiny.
 
-Finally, something I've wrestled with a great deal as an open source maintainer: your users always want *their* features prioritised, and underestimate the cost of those features to people who don't need them. A framework author must always balance the long-term health of the project with the desire to meet their users' needs. That's incredibly difficult, because it's hard to anticipate – much less articulate – the consequences of incremental bloat, and it takes serious soft skills to tell people (who may have been enthusiastically evangelising your tool up to that point) that their feature isn't important enough. But with an approach like Svelte's, many features can be added with absolutely no cost to people who don't use them, because the code that implements those features just doesn't get generated by the compiler if it's unnecessary.
+Finally, something I've wrestled with a great deal as an open source maintainer: your users always want *their* features prioritized, and underestimate the cost of those features to people who don't need them. A framework author must always balance the long-term health of the project with the desire to meet their users' needs. That's incredibly difficult, because it's hard to anticipate – much less articulate – the consequences of incremental bloat, and it takes serious soft skills to tell people (who may have been enthusiastically evangelizing your tool up to that point) that their feature isn't important enough. But with an approach like Svelte's, many features can be added with absolutely no cost to people who don't use them, because the code that implements those features just doesn't get generated by the compiler if it's unnecessary.
 
 
 ## We're just getting started