[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Section 0: Naming



| It dawned on me that since I co-drafted the spec, I ought to have the
| courtesy to put in a pitch for the status quo on all these section 1
| items.

And I should, pro forma, repeat my disagreement.

| At 11:08 AM 31/01/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
| >0.1 What should the title of the spec be?
| >0.2 What should the generic term or acronym we use to reference whatever
| > it is the spec describes?
| 
| (a) I don't think that XML-Link is euphonious or memorable, and 
| (b) XML is not exactly a name to conjure with (yet), and
| (c) It is *important* that what we build operate with, and be advised as
|     operating with, SGML and HTML.

I think that we should emphasize the association between components of
a suite of specifications.  I also personally find "XHL" a really
unpleasant acronym (I can't say why, I just don't like it).

Jon



References: