[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: I need a name
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jeff Lowery <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:08:09 -0500
Universal name would be harder. Augmented name would
sound like an Englebartism. Enhanced name sounds like a
stereo processor. None of these is more or less indicative
of what it does AFAICT than what is there.
IMO, they are the same topic: churning to get it perfect
for any case real or imagined over keeping it stable
to allow products to ship. If this were a catastrophe
making quality defect, I might think it important.
I guess I should backtrack and see if the question
is more one of explanation over inventing a new
name for the spec or adding to the ever expanding
acronymy given an overburdened technology but it's
Friday and I have to go mow the lawn before the
rain comes back. The neighbors are eyeing me. :-)
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:email@example.com]
> I don't have a problem with that.
It's not a problem until you have to explain the two at the same time to
> I have a problem with specs that keep
> churning on the basics and never settle
> down long enough for the tool vendors
> to get the tools stable enough for
> the rest of us to make money. Internet
> time is a myth. Internet business failure is not.
I think that's a different topic, no?