OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] To be a standard or not to be a standard

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Would it be too phigniquie of me to point out that the correct spellings are 'pedantry' and 'pedantic'?  Or should I just leave this one *hanging* out there for someone else to notice?
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith W. Boone [mailto:keith@woc.org]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 2:03 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] To be a standard or not to be a standard

I get a little tired of the pendantry on this list, so I looked up "standard" in the American Heritage Dictionary, just to satisfy the pendantic:
There are maybe two or three definitions that could be applied in this discussion:
n.    5.a. A degree or level or requirement, excellence, or attainment.
adj. 2. Widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence: a standard reference work.
adj. 5. Commonly used or supplied: standard car equipment
There is one other that might also apply, especially to some recommendations or products:
adj. 3. Acceptable, but of less than top quality: a standard grade of beef.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."  -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass


This memo and any attachments may be confidential and legally privileged.

If you are not the intended recipient and have received this in error,

kindly destroy this message and notify the sender.

Thank you for your assistance.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS