At 05:45 PM 8/28/2006, you wrote:
Honestly, if it were me (assuming I even decided to fight that
battle) I would also always say "commonly called 'deduplication'", or
something similar, to signal most readers that I was, in fact, just
using a specialized term to describe something they already know about.
That's very good advice.
So, let's from now on refer to it as:
node factorisation aka de-duplication.
After repeating this sufficient number of times people will start to
use the obviously better word, then the "aka" part will naturally wean
out. Then hopefully people who write books will use the better phrase
in their next book.
Sure, but it's a big world out there. I'm afraid I don't share your
optimism that we could have much of an effect on entire industries
and professions that precede us and will outlive us.
Hence, I'll probably continue to use the term I think will be
clearest and most helpful in the given context, which includes the
audience as a primary consideration.
Like anything so caught on the border between order and chaos,
writing is always a fine balancing act, and particularly when writing
about technical subjects. Correctness and clarity are sometimes at
odds. Aesthetic considerations are useful and worthwhile, but usually
prove to be the beginning, not the end, of the story.
Cheers,
Wendell
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--