Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency
От | David Fetter |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20071005182650.GD6005@fetter.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:22:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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. +1 > 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. That, or (my preference) make the change larger. I think it's significant that the vast majority of compatible software has some variant of Postgres and *not* PostgreSQL in the name. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: