[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
--- "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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.
In fact, in messages in this thread, both you and Jonathon have shortened "W3C
XML Schema" to "XML Schema". Using such a "short name" is understandable, since
in normal communication most people don't repeat ten syllable constructions
over and over. Many people feel that the "XML Schema" contraction imputes an
unwarranted primacy to the language being referred to. If you object to
acronyms, perhaps the working group should define a short name that doesn't
have that problem. If the working group doesn't, common usage will, and people
on this list have as much right to make WXS be the "short name" as you and
Jonathon do to make it "XML Schema".
> 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.
All of those roll off the tongue (or keyboard) a lot more easily than "W3C XML
Schema".
Jim
=====
Jim Ancona
jim@anconafamily.com jancona@xevo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
|
