- From: Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@s...>
- To: bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:01:37 +0800
bryan rasmussen wrote:
3bb44c6e0808260156y5faba6f9w1e94ca28142c2ad@m..."
type="cite">
How'bout SOAP in v1.2? It is a pronounceable acronym in v1.1 but has been
explicitly declared as a non-acronym in v1.2 (Ref:
http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/ under Section 1. Introduction's
"Note").
Yes, but it isnt an abbreviation either.
That's right, Byran. Am not saying it ("SOAP") is an abbreviation
either. From the tone of the spec, "SOAP" has just been "typedef"-ed
as an atomic word.
But I brought the example up as I just didn't think Rick's examples of
RADAR and LASER to justify pronunciation-based definition of acronyms
can be broadly applied, at least already not in the immediate vicinity
of W3 with SOAP v1.2's spec (am using "spec" assuming it is a widely
understood abbreviation of "specification").
Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
|
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
