On 22-Aug-01, 12:30 (CDT), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find this assertion in tension with the one you make later that "the > one line description should be targetted at people who _don't_ have any > idea what the package is." Why would such people know what "HTTP" > stands for? > > I think "httpd" would be a lousy name for a package, given that we have > more than one such tool in Debian, but if there were one called > "xtifr-httpd", I don't think "Chris Waters' Hypertext Transfer Protocol > Daemon" would be a bad short description.
I tend to agree in general, but in the specific case of HTTP daemons, if you don't know what an "httpd" is, you probably don't need one, and seeing "hypertext Transfer Protocol Daemon" isn't going to help. OTOH (On The Other Hand, HTH), "Chris Waters' Web Server" is better than either. Expanding "MP3 Player" seems silly. All of which leads me to believe that expansion of acronyms should be left to the long description. If there's a problem with a particular one, well, that's what the BTS is for. > And I think there are cases where you simply can't educate people > sufficiently in 80 characters to enable them to make an informed > decision. Exactly. Steve
