[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Resource gloss
- From: "Sean B. Palmer" <email@example.com>
- To: Miles Sabin <MSabin@interx.com>, XML-Dev Mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:49:07 +0000
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is completely out-of-date :-)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:-
I don't know why I'm bothering, in ten minutes it'll be called "Mushroom
Dependancy Overload Strictures" or something.
Sean B. Palmer
"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 <email@example.com>
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
> > 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 ;-)
> Miles Sabin InterX
> Internet Systems Architect 5/6 Glenthorne Mews
> +44 (0)20 8817 4030 London, W6 0LJ, England
> firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.interx.com/