| 1 |
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 23:21:51 +0100 |
| 2 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:49:30 +1100 |
| 4 |
> Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we |
| 6 |
> > > are trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't |
| 7 |
> > > define the term [2]. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be |
| 10 |
> > stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both |
| 11 |
> > components. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> How about "atoms". We've been using that for ages (regardless of what |
| 14 |
> PMS authors think) so why change it now? Alternatively, I would |
| 15 |
> propose to call them "bikesheds" as that will work just as well as |
| 16 |
> any other label and will succinctly refer to the creative process |
| 17 |
> that made it a replacement for "atoms". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
We made a deliberate decision not to use the word "atom" in PMS because |
| 20 |
it means subtly different things in different contexts. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives