[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Naugle) writes: > Hi Tim > > At 10:19 AM 6/5/2003 +0100, you wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 06:34:09AM +0200, Perl Authors Upload Server wrote: > >I'd suggest: > > > > Standard::US_DOD::STD2167A > > This is an excellent suggestion. I suggest and endorse > > US_DOD::STD2167A > > I like your suggestion of US_DOD instead of Military very much and > will may the change when I get back from the beach tonight. > > US_DOD identifies the originating activity that burns large amounts of > tax dollars, better than Military. Most other US departments and agencies, > whatever, other countries, whatever will revise and copy it and put their > own id on it. US_DOD makes sure the right activity gets their deserved > credit for their contribution, if contribution is the correct word. > > STD stays for Standard. Being the civilized world Athens of bureaucracy, > the US_DOD has standards, specs, DIDs, whatever. 2167 cites a > large number of Data Item Descriptions (DID) that I have available for > the same top level. > > The STD is fluff attribute. US_DOD and 2167 uniquely identifies it > from any other > document in the universe in accordance with engineering drawing standards. > The A is a revision number in accordance with engineering drawing standards. > Thus, I am opposed to a top level of Standard.
If it's only a document and not code, perhaps a new Doc:: top-level should be created. Then you could have Doc::US_DOD::STD2167A and avoid the duplicate "Standard". --Bill. -- William R Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net/~bill/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." - Emerson
