Re: Question on abbreviations (fwd)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@crosslink.net>
> >2) false positives
> >"...causing a distributed <acronym title="Disk Operating
> >System">DOS</acronym> attack..."
> >"...a list of <acronym title="Disk Operating System">DOS</acronym> AND
> >DON'TS..."
>
> This one I don't understand. Are you saying that if an acronym is linked
to
> it's definition at the bottom of the page or on a definitions page, it
> sometimes will not work and there nothing can be done about it?

If I have three different usages of "DOS" referenced in my documents, it's
nearly impossible for someone to code up an application that's going to come
up with the right definition programatically. Another reason why
search-and-replace has trouble. It's brain-dead to context.

> >3) unforeseen replaces

> This is a perfect example of why the acronym must be defined by the
content
> provider rather than the user. How is the user supposed to choose among
the
> 20 acronyms for IF if they don't know what it means in the first place?

Dictionaries have multiple definitions per word. I did also say that content
providers could and should give guidance using either what's already there
in HTML, or something RDF-based in the future to create custom dictionaries.

> Matt, you make it sounds like the world of databases has been shuffling
> along in need of direction for too long anyway. Remember Y2K?

Quite the contrary. I think the last thing database administrators need is
to be redirected. Not when I know that not a single one of them is going to
be willing to adopt the "solution."

----
matt

Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 12:52:39 UTC