On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:19:00 -0400 John C Klensin wrote: | | | --On Wednesday, 14 July, 2004 18:06 -0700 Christian Huitema | <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 | Procedure? | <grin> | | 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 | mean?" | | 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. -- ~Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf