Tumbleweeds

["Len Bullard" <Len.Bullard@ses-i.com>]

I'm changing the subject line to keep this from becoming topical dark
matter.

The problem of using an old one is it comes with it's community's
semiotic baggage as in repurposing "namespace".   It is one of the
trickier bits of communication in practice.  As Dr. Goldfarb said about
writing specifications or standards, "conserve nouns".

I understood Peter because of using the term for a similar problem only
to be told the term was "clica".  A very long time ago when sociology
was trendy, we would talk about clique theory, how one could identify
subcultures by their argot or lingo and how the right to create and
promote insider words was a sign of status as well as a means to
establish dominance by marking conversational territory. See "pissing on
trees".  It is also a means to avoid the same.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Sokolov [mailto:sokolov@ifactory.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 8:31 AM
To: Len Bullard
Cc: David Lee; Michael Kay; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basic
principles of ...


> The king has clothes.  You are not his subject.
>
> len
>
>    
unless you want to be

personally I'm happy to be a king's follower in this instance.  I don't 
mind coinage of new terms as needed, but to avoid jargon it's preferable

to repurpose an old one that's relevant.  How about "links" or 
"references"?  But I don't have any real stake in changing the terms of 
that discourse: just saying.

sokolov