Re: [action 63] naming our standard

Hey, 

Sustainability is key in terms of which ever name is chosen. Taking forward ITS is one form of this, where the work conducting in terms of ITS 1.0 drove forward the formation of the WG and subsequent development of "ITS 2.0". However I think the fact that the WG has adopted the brand of MLW provides a really good chance to future proof a naming convention. So my view is MLW-LT as a name of the standard is perfect as it allows for future MLW-** standards and builds on the concept of the multilingual web. 

My views.  

Dom. 




--
Dominic Jones | Research Assistant 
KDEG, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Mobile: + 353 (0) 879259719
http://www.scss.tcd.ie/dominic.jones/





On 19 Apr 2012, at 10:42, David Lewis wrote:

> As discussed in the last TC, as we increasingly advertise the work of our group, it becomes more important that we decide what we call it.
> 
> Possible option are:
> 'ITS 2.0'
> pros: established brand
> cons: focus on internationalisation whereas the delta is more related to localisation and even publication
> 
> 'MLW-LT':
> pros: matches name of the group
> cons: perhaps not very descriptive of a standard
> 
> Other options might be to extend the ITS brand to encompass the stronger localisation, e.g
> - Localisation and Internationalisation Tag Set (LITS)?
> 
> What are you opinions? Any other suggestions?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 10:11:06 UTC