Re: [xml-dev] Is "XML" an abbreviation or an acronym?

[Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>]

bryan rasmussen wrote:
> I think this is wrong here. If a word is started as an acronym that is
> in the history of the word but it not necessarily the case that the
> word must be an acronym for always thereafter.
>
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
>   
>>> 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.

IMHO "is" is too broad a term and causes problems here. The Bill Clinton 
defense! "SOAP" was coined as an acronym. Some people use it as an 
acronym now, but others do not.

Another example of the is Ecma. It used to be ECMA, short for a phrase, 
but now they have a less European bias it is just a name and not short 
for anything, according to them.   So it is and is not an acronym: 
conclusion..."is" is too non-specific for resolving argument in this 
case. "Acts as", "is used be me as", "can be thought of", "was coined 
as" are all more useful than raw "is". In other words, "is" just a 
placeholder for some more specific meaning which in general use does not 
need to explicated: so intricate arguments with "is" are illegitimate 
because they involve shifting the  meaning of "is" (to the strict 
logical/existential/predicate sense).

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe