Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to use "Postgres" alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the documentation and other written resources. A change along that line has already been made in the FAQ.
Many points have been made recently on the name of the project or the product, but the fact is that it will always be one or the other at any particular time. It's fine to have alternative names. But keep in mind that the purpose of documentation is to convey information, not to make subtle points about naming issues. If you want to make points about naming issues, write a nonsubtle document about it. Others have also made points that it is OK to use acronyms in place of the full name, and "Postgres" could be that, or that it's like Coke vs Coca-Cola. Nevertheless, any writing resource or technical editor will tell you that you need to be consistent. If you want to use an acronym, you introduce it once, and then you use it all the time. And if you write an article about beverages, you will use either Coke or Coca-Cola throughout, not both. If the terminology or the acronyms are not clear, you explain it at the beginning, and readers will look it up there. I believe both the FAQ and the documentation do explain the naming issue near the beginning. But the rest of the document should use one name consistently, or it will just look silly and confusing. Also consider that many of our written resources are not read linearly, so it becomes even more important to use consistent terminology that does not require much context to understand. So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
