Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
> Gervase Markham wrote (on the topic of "qa" being interpreted as "Q&A"):
> >
> > > hahahahahahhaa this is a good one, I'll remember it.
> >
> > I wouldn't laugh. Many people make the same mistake. That's why the new
> > version will be called ".quality". :-)
>
> Hmm. I didn't think of this during the original discussions on newsgroup
> renaming, but suddenly I can imagine the new ".quality" group getting
> posts like:
>
> "Netscape is such poor quality!!!"
>
> How about ".quality-testing"? Totally unambiguous, and I can't think of
> any erroneous interpretations.
Quality testing sounds so grammatically dubious. Why not
".quality-assurance"? (And if we get posts from people attempting to be
assured that we have quality, it's their own damn fault. :) )
