• From: Miles Sabin <MSabin@i...>
• To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:37:56 +0000

Jonathan Borden wrote,
> We might slightly play down the dependency on XML Namespaces, 
> what we really are describing are resource directories

Agreed.

> the interest being as direct as possible does anyone have a 
> serious opposition to:
>
> Resource Directory Description

It's not a Resource Directory _Description_.
It's a Resource Directory ... period.

Unfortunately RD invites the addition of an F (for format or
file) which would be nastily overloaded. So I propose sticking
an 'Associated' on the front,

  Associated Resource Directory (ARD)
  Associated Resource Directory Format/File (ARDF)

And not an 'X' or an 'L' in sight ;-)

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                               InterX
Internet Systems Architect                5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030                       London, W6 0LJ, England
msabin@i...                         http://www.interx.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Resource gloss
    • From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Resource gloss
• Next by Date: Re: Resource gloss
• Previous by thread: Re: Resource gloss
• Next by thread: Re: Resource gloss
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread