Re: Glossary 0.0.4 (repost)
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 00:36:08 +0200
Message-ID: <42964f59$0$158$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> OK, fair enough. I guess I'm thinking of database newbies who might read
> it, and I think as a general principle it's best to avoid acronyms in
> glossaries. The problem is once you become familiar with jargon and
> acronyms they becomes second nature and you forget that other people may
> not have a clue what you're on about.
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 00:36:08 +0200
Message-ID: <42964f59$0$158$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Paul wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>
>>None of these abbreviations have AFAIK ever led to misunderstandings in >>this newsgroup: FOLDOC, DBMS, ,ISO, RM, SQL-DBMS, IT, 3rdM, m.m., ER. >>I don't think these should be explained in this glossary.
>
> OK, fair enough. I guess I'm thinking of database newbies who might read
> it, and I think as a general principle it's best to avoid acronyms in
> glossaries. The problem is once you become familiar with jargon and
> acronyms they becomes second nature and you forget that other people may
> not have a clue what you're on about.
A very sympathetic goal. Such a list could be part of a CDT FAQ. Unfortunately the few attempts to start such a FAQ have failed (until now? :-) Received on Fri May 27 2005 - 00:36:08 CEST