[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Francis Norton <francis@redrice.com> writes:
> Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>
> >Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com> writes
> >
> >>Is there a reason for not calling this language W3C XML Schema
> >> or XSDL, the official . . . acronym for the language . . .?
>
> >>
>
> >
> >Um, I believe a _long_ time ago the W3C XML Schema WG decided it would
> > prefer no acronym,
>
> Shades of King Canute's courtiers here, surely?
>
> >and has accordingly never, to my knowledge, blessed
> >_any_ acronym, including XSDL. That (i.e. no acronym) still gets my
> >vote.
> >
> In other words, if people wish to use acronyms - and they do - then
> they may as well use one chosen by those who wish to minimise the
> roles of this language. Um indeed.
Actually, I think it's possible, and in cases of semantically dense
terminological spaces such as XML schema languages, preferrable, to
avoid acronyms altogether. I don't find it difficult at all to always
just type "W3C XML Schema", and I have done so, and will continue to
do so, not only for accuracy, but also as a courtesy to the newcomers
and casual readers of this list. I also note that we're doing fine
without acronyms for Web Services, Semantic Web, XLink, XML Base, XML
Signature, XPath, XML Infoset, to rattle off the first few I thought
of.
I just think the acronym space is too heavily populated for it to be
much use outside of very focussed groups to use lots of acronyms.
I realise I'm in the minority, I just thought I'd clarify why I prefer
not to encourage the use of _any_ acronym for referring to the W3C XML
Schema design/language/effort.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
