Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

I meant Worlds is already done correctly

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:54:25AM -0700, Meadhbh Siobhan wrote:
> what version of the draft are you looking at? the most recent version
> uses "protocol" almost exclusively (using "protocols" only in one spot
> near the initialism OGPX.)
> 
> i'm not saying this to argue for or against the use of "protocol" over
> "protocols," only to point out that we might be looking at different
> revisions of the draft charter.
> 
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Carlo Wood<carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 08:53:58AM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >> As I read things, it should stand for Virtual World Region/Agent
> >> Protocols (note the final "s"), giving the name the flexibility to
> >> cover multiple related protocols (one of which could certainly be
> >> called "VWRAP" as well, and would, in that case, have no "s".
> >
> > Virtual Worlds Region/Agent Protocol(s)
> >
> > no opinion yet on the s behind Protocol, but there should be
> > an 's' behind Worlds.
> >
> > This is already done correctly in the draft.
> >
> > --
> > Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
> > _______________________________________________
> > ogpx mailing list
> > ogpx@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>