Re: Resource gloss

["Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>]

Cheers everyone, it's fun writing something to find that 5 minutes later it
is completely out-of-date :-)
I don't like the "associated" prefix on the front, so I'm going to say:-

     Comparable Resource Directory

Taking into account Sean McGrath's suggestion of cf, this abbreviates to:-

     CFRD

I don't know why I'm bothering, in ten minutes it'll be called "Mushroom
Dependancy Overload Strictures" or something.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://infomesh.net/sbp/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF]
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

----- Original Message -----
From: Miles Sabin <MSabin@interx.com>
To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@xml.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 9:37 PM
Subject: RE: Resource gloss


> Jonathan Borden wrote,
> > We might slightly play down the dependency on XML Namespaces,
> > what we really are describing are resource directories
>
> Agreed.
>
> > the interest being as direct as possible does anyone have a
> > serious opposition to:
> >
> > Resource Directory Description
>
> It's not a Resource Directory _Description_.
> It's a Resource Directory ... period.
>
> Unfortunately RD invites the addition of an F (for format or
> file) which would be nastily overloaded. So I propose sticking
> an 'Associated' on the front,
>
>   Associated Resource Directory (ARD)
>   Associated Resource Directory Format/File (ARDF)
>
> And not an 'X' or an 'L' in sight ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Miles
>
> --
> Miles Sabin                               InterX
> Internet Systems Architect                5/6 Glenthorne Mews
> +44 (0)20 8817 4030                       London, W6 0LJ, England
> msabin@interx.com                         http://www.interx.com/
>