On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Bill Haneman wrote: > Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:48:09 +0000 > From: Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to > answer] > > Richard M. Stallman wrote: > > > Maybe we should just claim that we can't spell very well; ISV = "Third > > Party Developer". A whole new kind of a10n[1]. ;-)
[a10n == abbreviation presumably.] > >We can't solve the problem by denying it. No one is denying the power of words but matters of linguistics are distracting from more important issues (like the need for clear information and heading off patent threats). > > We use the term interchangably with 'third party developers', and > > have made > > that explicit in many cases when we talk about it. OOo and Firefox > > also fit > > into this world view as 'third party developers' or ISVs. > > > >The term "third party developers" has no problems--so I think that is > >a good solution. > Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. > I do think it's worth making this change, as you say, rather than > denying the issue. Would it really kill people to write out "Third Party Developer" and avoid the confusion entirely? You wouldn't obfuscate your code with indescipherable acronyms, so please do not add to the perceived elitism with even more exclusive jargon. - Alan _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
