RE: agenda+ Use of ie, eg, etc

I've added this to the agenda for tomorrow.

I will note that I don't think this is an I18N issue and we probably shouldn't take sides on this. It is an English style issue: I have heard plenty of technical writers and others recommend against using i.e. and e.g. vs. their English language spelled out equivalents. While we do look at some stylistic issues in specs, they are mainly to do with inclusion/representation of languages and cultures. We should, IMO, stick to that?

Addison

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin <john+w3c@jck.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 5:56 AM
To: r12a <ishida@w3.org>; Internationalization Working Group <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Subject: Re: agenda+ Use of ie, eg, etc

It seems to me that, if we are going to ban abbreviations that have existed in English for centuries and that appear in almost every competent dictionary (whether rooted in Latin, assorted variations on Anglo-Saxon, proto-British, or something else) then, out of deference to non-first-language speakers and readers, we should also ban recent neologisms, contrived abbreviations, and excesses of contrived cuteness.  Presumably that effort should start with a ban on "W3C" and "I18n".

Mumble.
    john
 


--On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 09:39 +0000 r12a <ishida@w3.org> wrote:

> Did we really recommend this?  Do we still recommend it?
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1045#issuecomment-14
> 37594686
> 
> ri

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2023 15:13:20 UTC