In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Charles Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in addition to other things said: > Should "bin", var", "cult", etc., be written in full? (I think not, to > save bloating file sizes)
> These abbreviations are absolutely fine within the very narrow domain of > biological nomenclature and taxonomy, but expanded out into the wider > domain, then they become horribly generic and lose their meaning. Same > with using "sci". In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in addition to other things said: > And yet we have "geo". I think comparing geo and sci, etc. is not a great example as I think geo can be thought of as a well known abbreviation. As with much other microformat work a well known standard or abbreviation like vcard I think geo can is a (or close to) "standard" so it is a "safe" abbreviation which I think is what we should be aiming for when creating an abbreviation of any type. I do realize GEO is being used by others such as the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) but I THINK what I say holds as geo being an implied abbreviation standard. The point I am trying to make is abbreviations can be very dangerous and are very easy to mis-interpret so I think we need to think long and hard before choosing and implementing them. I am not arguing against them in specific cases but very well thought out cases. As microformats are human-readable first I think size is a secondary consideration. Are there any stats about how many sites are compression enabled vs. not? Thank You, Christopher ___________________________________________________________ $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
