I disagree, this would be contrary to people 's expectation and jeopardize the adoption of EARL to start from. > I suggest that EARL should not stand for anything at all, and when > quizzed, we should just refer people to some of the core discussions > on ERT about what it should be called. It's perfectly acceptable to > have an acronym that has no particular expansion. In fact, in the case > of EARL, every time we've tried to expand it, we've ended up not being > able to fully capture what we mean. > > The characters "EARL" should be enough to symbolize to anyone who has > worked on the language enough to recognize the whole "feeling" behind > the name, and, to people being introduced to the language, they won't > have some redundant first impression of a language that may need at > least a thousand words to explain. In other words, "EARL" should > become a word (acronym) of its very own. > > There are only a few instances of the expansion on the EARL homepage > anyway - these would be quite easy to remove, and perhaps replace with > a link to this note, or some XHTML equivalent. > > -- > Kindest Regards, > Sean B. Palmer > @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . > :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 05:48:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:38 GMT