Re: [sca-bindings] Bindings issues 57, 58, 59, elated to Assembly-96, andsection 1.3 of assembly cd02

My preference is to treat acronyms and
abbreviations as words for the purposes of capitalization.

We could equally use JMS as an example
here.

If we treat each letter as separate,
then for entities that require a lower case starting letter, we end up,
for example: with jMSConnectionFactory  which looks uglier to me than
jmsConnectionFactory.   Of course when a capital letter is required,
we would have e.g. JmsConnectionFactoryType.

Another way to consider it is that all
the letters of an acronym or abbreviation are a single extended letter,
that has to be uppercased or lowercased in its entirety as required, so
you only ever see "jms" or "JMS" and never "Jms"
or "jMS".

Regards, Simon

Simon Holdsworth

STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair

MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK

Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898

Internet - 

Anish Karmarkar <>

22/01/2009 07:22

To

Eric Johnson <>

cc

OASIS Bindings <>,
Scott Vorthmann <>, Sabin Ielceanu <>

Subject

Re: [sca-bindings] Bindings issues 57,
58, 59, elated to Assembly-96, and section 1.3 of assembly cd02

Eric Johnson wrote:

> It is perhaps an extreme nit pick to bring this up, but the resolution

> of bindings issues 57, 58, & 59 all relate to Assembly-96.

> 

> As I was looking through the text of assembly-cd-02, section 1.3,
I see

> this:

> An example of an intent which is an acronym is the "SOAP"
intent.

> 

> Now, if you look here: http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#intro, you'll

> see "In previous versions of this specification the SOAP name
was an

> acronym. This is no longer the case."

> 

> All of which makes SOAP a singularly terrible example to use, because

> with SOAP 1.1, SOAP is an acronym (at least officially, but probably

> never used that way), but with SOAP 1.2, it isn't.

Most of you have probably seen this before, but could not resist sending
it:

http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/11/15/the-s-stands-for-simple/

> 

> Since my task is to write text for the binding specifications to

> *reference* the materials of the assembly specification, and add the

> naming convention specific to bindings, the benefit of using a reference

> is that I won't be copying the error.  Should this be raised
with the

> assembly specification?

> 

This is indeed a nit.

Since we are referencing things in the assembly spec, this should be 

raised in that TC. Perhaps "EJB" intent would be a better example.

-Anish

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU