- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:14:43 -0500
- To: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
- Cc: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, spec-prod@w3.org
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:02 -0700, Susan Lesch wrote: > Thomas Baker wrote: > > Section 12 of the Manual of Style says that "number sign" > > should be preferred to "crosshatch" when referring to the > > symbol "#". > > > > It may be worth noting that in the context of discussing > > identifiers, e.g. in [2], this symbol is referred to as a > > "hash". > > Changed to: > > usually not pound sign, hash, crosshatch or octothorpe > but hash namespace in SKOS Core > > Or is the use wider than SKOS? It's called "hash" often in discussions of URIs and web architecture. The archive search shows 52 occurrences of "hash" in the uri list and 4660 occurrences in all lists. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/ http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=uri&index-type=t&keywords=hash&search=Search http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=uri&keywords=hash Google counts 1,630,000 documents that match hash uri . http://www.google.com/search?q=hash +uri&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial Remarkably, the webarch document and the tag issues list don't call it anything; it's just written '#' every time. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#fragid http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14 > Maybe you will know a better way to describe > the exception. Thank you. > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/ > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/ > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2006 17:15:48 UTC