- From: Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@s...>
- To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:11:14 +0800
Michael Kay wrote:
E944BA643BE54C9AA06F8F8E1E1B75E0@Sealion"
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").
You can't change a word's history by diktat from above. The dictionary
definition is useful here: it's an acronym if that's how the word was
originally formed, even if its "owners" dislike the fact.
Sorry, Michael, I didn't change that but just following spec. If we
follow dictionary definitions in English,
the corresponding thing to do in standards would be to follow
specification, or change/update/correct it if
it gets outdated. Until the spec gives an amendment like what you
mentioned, we're stuck with pronouncing
"SOAP" (as in "soap powder") but not giving its long-form words as
found in v1.1.
In a way, this is just formalizing what we practice with words like
LASER anyway. We don't hear
people talk about "Light Amplification of Stimulated Emission of
Radiation", though we can trace
the roots of LASER to its original (v1.1?) scientific research.
Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
|
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
