Re: [action 63] naming our standard

On 19.4.2012 12:11, Dominic Jones wrote:
> 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. 

Name of standard shouldn't be just abbreviation, it should make sense
when fully expanded. I don't see reasonable expansion of MLW-LT to name
of specification, while I can see reasonable expansion of ITS, LITS or
ITS NG.

    Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------