Re: cdt glossary TABLE
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:30:37 +0200
Message-ID: <42d5a41b$0$32522$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> I'm considering a rephrasing of Downs' Law, to avoid a potential pitfall
> here, perhaps this expresses what I mean better: "People find it easy
> (natural?) to work with tabular data."
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:30:37 +0200
Message-ID: <42d5a41b$0$32522$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Kenneth Downs wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>If you can afford to be informal - think of Down's law. >>If you need to be concise, don't use 'table'. Use 'relation'.
>
> I'm considering a rephrasing of Downs' Law, to avoid a potential pitfall
> here, perhaps this expresses what I mean better: "People find it easy
> (natural?) to work with tabular data."
The proposed 'table' glossary entry still suggests the same - even if we take out these explicit lines.
I like the Spight phrasing, but hey! it's your law. Anyway it is not at issue here, I just found an excuse to promote it.
Please criticise the proposal. Received on Thu Jul 14 2005 - 01:30:37 CEST