• From: Steve Tinney <stinney@s...>
• To: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:39:29 -0500

James Robertson wrote:
> 
> At 16:57 17/01/2001, you wrote:
> 
> >Sorry if you assumed it was some kind of insiderism. The reason
> >we used it was that the IETF has a silly little tradition
> >of using an 8 character or less short name for sessions so that
> >it will fit on a small format schedule. "contextualization" wouldn't
> >fit so we used c15n. Nothing sinister, just a silly acronym
> >game...
> 

As the original author of the insiderism comment to James, I stand by my
point.  Obfuscation by alpha-numeric abbreviation is *both* convenient
to insiders *and* a barrier to outsiders.  Proliferation of such
abbreviations increases the socio-linguistic distance between insiders
and outsiders.  Such is life.

 Steve

• References:
  • Re: How could RDDL be distributed ?
    • From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>
  • Re: How could RDDL be distributed ?
    • From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: How could RDDL be distributed ?
• Next by Date: RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?
• Previous by thread: Re: How could RDDL be distributed ?
• Next by thread: RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread