W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 1998

Ответ: RE> In which languages are PHONE and TEL ambiguous

From: Sergei N. Mouraviev <moretext@infopro.spb.su>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:17:10 +0400
Message-ID: <009701bda054$d34121c0$a1c87cc1@ppp0.yaroslavl.ru>
To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: <www-international@w3.org>
Other languages (Russian):

Tel: is certainly used for Telephone (not sure about other Slavic languages).
TV is used for TV:-)

Again, virtually any abbreviation is ambiguous when it lacks context so we are
highly subjective in our (personal) judgments.

Sergei Mouraviev

-----Исходное сообщение-----
От: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Кому: Mike Brenner <mfb@spectre.mitre.org>
Копия: www-international@w3.org <www-international@w3.org>
Дата: 25 июня 1998 г. 20:02
Тема: Re: RE> In which languages are PHONE and TEL ambiguous


>At 09:56 98/06/25 -0400, Mike Brenner wrote:
>>
>> Starting with English: TEL is quite ambiguous. We just started
>> connecting all the cable televisions in America to the Internet.
>> For forty dollars a month you can get a million bits per second
>> unlimited Internet access as well as a hundred cable channels on
>> the same wire. When the price gets cut down to twenty dollars, we
>> are all probably going to buy this service. TEL means more
>> TELEVISION than TELEPHONE in the United States.
>
>Just a few questions:
>
>Television starts with TEL, but does that mean that TEL is ambigous?
>How many English speakers are saying "Let's watch TEL." or "Let's TEL."?
>When we need an URI for television, there is a very obvious solution:
>TV. How many people would expect it to become something else?
>(well, maybe it's a bit short :-)
>
>
>
>> However, PHONE is not ambiguous in English speaking countries after
>> the dialect was standardized by the movie ET in which the Extra-Terrestrial
>> says the famous line: ET Phone Home.
>
>How many people have seen that movie? That sentence may have been very
>impressive to people who watched it, but not to others.
>How was that translated into other languages? How is it written in other
>languages?
>
>And how many of the namecards you have from English-speaking
>aquaintances and friends use:
>Tel?
>Phone?
>Something else?
>Nothing?
>
>And how would that be for namecards from non-English-speaking
>countries? Would really be interesting to see such statistics.
>Unfortunately, I'm traveling currently, so my own collection
>of Tel 1 and phone 1 for English-speaking countries, and
>several Tel and no phone for the others, is to small for
>a representative sample.
>
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Here is a question: how would having a PHONE:
>> distinguish between locally sending tones out of a locally
>> connected modem versus requesting an external service from
>> a service provider?
>
>The same problem appears for internet access via the TV infrastructure.
>As it currently goes, a machine automatically (or semi-automatically
>in some cases) decides whether it should send out some tones to
>the modem even for an http: or ftp: URI. I don't think we want to
>get away from that convenience. The classical use of the "TEL" URI
>is to put it on your home page, somebody clicks it, and is calling
>you (you might want to be very careful with putting that on your page :-).
>There may of course be other uses.
>
>In parallel, the use of a "TV" URI will address a particular program
>channel, or whatever. It should in the end (with lots of bandwith)
>not have anything to do with whether you get it over a local cable
>network or something else.
>
>
>Regards,    Martin.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 June 1998 12:22:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:16:52 GMT