Re: [MACCAWS] browsers? No, user agents.

On Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 11:45 AM, [email protected] 
wrote:

>
> So lets use a form of words that says, at the beginning of any article:
>
>  . . . user agent, whether they be browsers on PCs or PDAs, phones 
> Web TV or braille readers or speech processors or anything else 
> reads a web page . . . .
> Then go on using 'user agent' having defined it. Matter of clarity 
> of style defining the terms being used in the document.

Will the articles be used in toto or as sources for quotes and 
factoids by Webheads making a case to a bunch of suits? If the 
former, the above may be the way to go. If the latter, then will 
grabbing a line about a 'user agent' out of context be a problem? 
Should we rely on those using the docs to do the translation?

As well, there's the issue of tone. Affecting a comp sci research 
paper tone will lend credibility. It will also bore the living $#!+ 
out of the suits, who may not read much past the above definition 
(I speak from experience here). Neither extreme (marketroid 
happyspeak or techno-babble) is good, of course. It's a matter of 
finding the right balance.

I don't pretend to know which way to go on this particular issue, 
I'm just pointing out things that would affect my decision.

> P.S. - Referring to another question, for stylistic matters I use 
> Ritter, R.M., (2002), The Oxford Manual of Style, OUP, Oxford, 
> ISBN(?) CN 101849 available from http://www.etsp.co.uk

Gotta buy that one. Thanks for the info.

>>  from:    MJ Ray <[email protected]>
>>
> I suspect "user agent" is the right thing to use, for that and 
> avoiding the
> "browser wars" turn-off.

Will the suits even remember the 'browser wars'?


chris.kaminski { functionNewMedia :: <http://www.function.de> }