Re: diatribe

[Rebecca and Rowland <rebecca@astrid.u-net.com>]

simonmc@ebox.tninet.se wrote:

>Berthold K.P. Horn wrote:
[snip]
>> :-) Nomenclature problem. T1 fonts as opposed to TT fonts (as in
>> Type 1 as opposed to TrueType) is what was intended I think.
>>
>Yes, you are right.  When the world out side the TeX community say T1 as
>an acronym for TypeOne font format,

Actually, it's not the world, it's just those people who work on non-TeX
founts on a daily basis - a much smaller set of people.  Not that that
matters: this is the tex-fonts mailing list.

>  We are here worrying about the
>conflict between T1 font encoding and the T1 font format.

Given that so many abbreviations are overloaded and therefore subject to
ambiguous interpretation, why not avoid using them entirely?

Say: Type 1 fount; and T1 encoding.  (In a non-TeX forum, I would suggest
TeXBase1 encoding).

I'm trying not to extend this rather silly thread any further than this; I
do have a suggestion:

I suggest that anyone posting to this mailing list takes care to write
clearly, avoiding unexplained acronyms, ambiguous abbreviations,
colloquialisms, mis-applied (or ambiguously applied) technical terms, any
vague use of language, and things like that.

Please bear in mind that not everyone has your (I'm aiming this remark at
everyone, including myself) particular technical background or fluency in
your particular brand of English.

(Remember: some people don't have English as their first language.  There
are all sorts of other languages out there: Mandarin Chinese, Swedish,
Swahili, American, etc.)

Rowland.
(Who does use colloquialisms, but does try to make them clear or at least
non-intrusive)

(and has been known to make jokes as well.  Can you spot the joke I made
above?)