On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:19:00 -0400 John C Klensin wrote:
| --On Wednesday, 14 July, 2004 18:06 -0700 Christian Huitema
| <huitema(_at_)windows(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
| > Or consider the RFC that describes Classical IP and ARP over
| > Automatic Teller Machines...
| What did you say an ARP was? Some sort of fuzzy alien, perhaps?
| A digestive sound made after excessive SIPPING ? Or, given
| those teller machines, perhaps an Advanced Reimbursement
| I am not suggesting that we never expand an abbreviation and
| never explain an acronym. I suggest only that
| * we need to rethink the application of the rules a bit
| for situations in which the constructed or shortened
| term has become a word in its own right and, more
| important, in which an expansion would tend to confuse
| rather than illuminate, and
| * that we get a little more serious about the
| requirement that abstracts be sufficient for someone who
| doesn't know what the document is about to figure that
| out because titles will never be able to adequately do
| that job.
| For the second, pretend that you are reading the title that
| Christian cites above: "Classical IP and ARP over ATM". Now
| pretend that you don't know much about that corner of the IETF's
| work, or even that you are an applications type who doesn't know
| much about _anything_ at that layer. Now expand the
| abbreviations and try to convince yourself that you would know
| something you didn't know with the present title. Reaction to
| present title: "Huh? Strange abbreviations". Reaction to title
| with abbreviations expanded: "Huh? What on earth do those words
| I don't see a lot of difference.
Good docs just include a glossary of terms/abbreviations/acronyms.
I'd prefer to see acronyms in the titles.
Ietf mailing list