Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Cheers everyone, it's fun writing something to find that 5 minutes later it
is completely out-of-date :-)
I don't like the "associated" prefix on the front, so I'm going to say:-
Comparable Resource Directory
Taking into account Sean McGrath's suggestion of cf, this abbreviates to:-
CFRD
I don't know why I'm bothering, in ten minutes it'll be called "Mushroom
Dependancy Overload Strictures" or something.
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://infomesh.net/sbp/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF]
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
- Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
----- Original Message -----
From: Miles Sabin <MSabin@i...>
To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@x...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 9:37 PM
Subject: RE: Resource gloss
> 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/
>
|
