bryan rasmussen wrote:
3bb44c6e0808260156y5faba6f9w1e94ca28142c2ad@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">That's right, Byran. Am not saying it ("SOAP") is an abbreviation either. From the tone of the spec, "SOAP" has just been "typedef"-ed as an atomic word.How'bout SOAP in v1.2? It is a pronounceable acronym in v1.1 but has been explicitly declared as a non-acronym in v1.2 (Ref: http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/ under Section 1. Introduction's "Note").Yes, but it isnt an abbreviation either. But I brought the example up as I just didn't think Rick's examples of RADAR and LASER to justify pronunciation-based definition of acronyms can be broadly applied, at least already not in the immediate vicinity of W3 with SOAP v1.2's spec (am using "spec" assuming it is a widely understood abbreviation of "specification"). Regards, Chin Chee-Kai |