From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:26:50 -0700
Message-ID: <20071005182650.GD6005@fetter.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200710051922.01797.peter_e@gmx.net>
References: <200710051922.01797.peter_e@gmx.net>
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: david@fetter.org, peter_e@gmx.net
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency
In-Reply-To: <20071005182650.GD6005@fetter.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox