On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, A.R. (Tom) Peters wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Alan & Susan Mead wrote:
> > Item writing is my vocation and my main concern. :) Regardig the guidelines,
> > you're right; they were drafted some time ago and I revised have them
> > slightly. I would be *VERY* open to input
"A.R. (Tom) Peters" wrote:
Your proposed list format is as follows.
Preferred: DNS
Definition1:uhh ... "Internet Protocol (port 53?) to translate
between
Definition2:computer names (Fully Qualified Domain Names) and
Definition3:numerical IP adresses (Dotted Quad numbers)."
Deprec
[ personal & list mail ]
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Forrest Tiffany wrote:
> In response to discussion by
> "A.R. (Tom) Peters" and Alan & Susan Mead:
%< cut >%
> Points made so far without regard to who made them:
>
>
%< cut >%
Forres
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Alan & Susan Mead wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: A.R. (Tom) Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
%< cut >%
> >* The list will not mention terms (acronyms) that don't really
> >have synonyms: for example, you either use "Mail Transfer Agent" or
> >[...]
>
> I'm not sure
-Original Message-
From: A.R. (Tom) Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: Call for dictionary
> Your proposal - as I understand it - takes care that everybody uses
>consistent terminol
In response to discussion by
"A.R. (Tom) Peters" and Alan & Susan Mead:
First: I appologize for anyone else who took part in the
discussion but was not mentioned. This was due to
a combination of not being quoted in the email,
and my recent start on the mailing list.
>
Boy, I respond to every paragraph you wrote. I could not cut back; if you
reply, please delete some of the stuff we chewed on sufficiently.
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Alan & Susan Mead wrote:
> From: A.R. (Tom) Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I think this does not solve the issue that was originally
-Original Message-
From: A.R. (Tom) Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, June 28, 1999 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: Call for dictionary
>On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Alan & Susan Mead wrote:
>
> I think this does not solve the
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Alan & Susan Mead wrote:
> I think a dictionary would be nice for the test, it is really more a
> training tool. Of course, this assumes we all share enough of our peculiar
> dialect that we can communicate in written form about Linux. I'm not
> willing to bet against that
Monday, June 28, 1999 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: Call for dictionary
>What you need is a variant of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary. I do not
>know of one that exists for Linux. The basic standard, www.webopedia.com,
is
>sorely lacking in a number of key Linux concepts. But if you can find
People who speak computereese do not speak English. What they do speak is
a distant variant from English.
When I took courses in networking and Unix years ago, the first thing that a
number of professors would start with is the Glossary. They would put each
of the terms in context with the histor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, June 27, 1999 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: Call for dictionary
>Hi,
>
>Wouldn't it be a better idea to work the other way around?
>I.e. make the tests, filter the jargon from th
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, A.R. (Tom) Peters spewed into the bitstream:
> In our discussion about consensus point VIII (no jargon and acronyms) it
> became apparent we cannot avoid them completely, so we should define what
> jargon and acronyms we deem to be so common that we assume the candidate
> k
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Jos Visser wrote:
> Wouldn't it be a better idea to work the other way around?
> I.e. make the tests, filter the jargon from them and then decide whether some
> of them need explanation or be part of a glossary?
Essentially, I think not:
- it will become a moving target wh
> on 27/06/99 07:00:55 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Les Bell/Les Bell and Associates Pty Ltd)
Subject: Call for dictionary
In our discussion about consensus point VIII (no jargon and acronyms) it
became apparent we cannot avoid them completely,
Hi,
Wouldn't it be a better idea to work the other way around?
I.e. make the tests, filter the jargon from them and then decide whether some
of them need explanation or be part of a glossary?
++Jos
:: In our discussion about consensus point VIII (no jargon and acronyms) it
:: became apparent
In our discussion about consensus point VIII (no jargon and acronyms) it
became apparent we cannot avoid them completely, so we should define what
jargon and acronyms we deem to be so common that we assume the candidate
knows about them.
Are there some people here who would like to take these
17 matches
Mail list logo
