Michael Kay wrote:
E944BA643BE54C9AA06F8F8E1E1B75E0@Sealion" type="cite">Sorry, Michael, I didn't change that but just following spec. If we follow dictionary definitions in English,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").You can't change a word's history by diktat from above. The dictionary definition is useful here: it's an acronym if that's how the word was originally formed, even if its "owners" dislike the fact. the corresponding thing to do in standards would be to follow specification, or change/update/correct it if it gets outdated. Until the spec gives an amendment like what you mentioned, we're stuck with pronouncing "SOAP" (as in "soap powder") but not giving its long-form words as found in v1.1. In a way, this is just formalizing what we practice with words like LASER anyway. We don't hear people talk about "Light Amplification of Stimulated Emission of Radiation", though we can trace the roots of LASER to its original (v1.1?) scientific research. Regards, Chin Chee-Kai |