Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Universal name would be harder. Augmented name would sound like an Englebartism. Enhanced name sounds like a stereo processor. None of these is more or less indicative of what it does AFAICT than what is there. IMO, they are the same topic: churning to get it perfect for any case real or imagined over keeping it stable to allow products to ship. If this were a catastrophe making quality defect, I might think it important. I guess I should backtrack and see if the question is more one of explanation over inventing a new name for the spec or adding to the ever expanding acronymy given an overburdened technology but it's Friday and I have to go mow the lawn before the rain comes back. The neighbors are eyeing me. :-) Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@s...] > -----Original Message----- > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...] >... > I don't have a problem with that. It's not a problem until you have to explain the two at the same time to somebody. > > I have a problem with specs that keep > churning on the basics and never settle > down long enough for the tool vendors > to get the tools stable enough for > the rest of us to make money. Internet > time is a myth. Internet business failure is not. I think that's a different topic, no?
|
