W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > February 1997

Re: 1.4 h: Explainer?

From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 12:25:36 -0600
Message-ID: <32FB73A0.8BF@hiwaay.net>
To: John_Lavagnino@brown.edu
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
John_Lavagnino@brown.edu wrote:
> "Explainer" sounds fine to me.  Both "caption" and "description" seem
> to imply a function in too narrow a way: this thing is not necessarily
> going to be displayed as some sort of caption (to me this sounds like
> it has to go right under a big arrow), 

But that is a common usage of it.

>  and a "description" makes it
> sound more like some kind of documentation rather than part of a
> function or interface.

which is the most common usage of it.

This points out the problems of the name game:

o  Implies the functionality

o  Is in concert with common practice

o  Satisfies an abstract set of rules for naming

I think there will be no argument or choice that satisfies all 
conditions in all cases.  This is why I think it preferable 
to use HyTime names where possible.  In this coin toss,
the coin should be weighted to the side of the standard.
That is easy to explain(er)/describe/capture.

Len Bullard
Received on Friday, 7 February 1997 13:36:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:07 UTC