Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to use "Postgres"
alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the documentation and other
written resources. A change along that line has already been made in the
Many points have been made recently on the name of the project or the product,
but the fact is that it will always be one or the other at any particular
time. It's fine to have alternative names. But keep in mind that the
purpose of documentation is to convey information, not to make subtle points
about naming issues. If you want to make points about naming issues, write a
nonsubtle document about it.
Others have also made points that it is OK to use acronyms in place of the
full name, and "Postgres" could be that, or that it's like Coke vs Coca-Cola.
Nevertheless, any writing resource or technical editor will tell you that you
need to be consistent. If you want to use an acronym, you introduce it once,
and then you use it all the time. And if you write an article about
beverages, you will use either Coke or Coca-Cola throughout, not both. If
the terminology or the acronyms are not clear, you explain it at the
beginning, and readers will look it up there.
I believe both the FAQ and the documentation do explain the naming issue near
the beginning. But the rest of the document should use one name
consistently, or it will just look silly and confusing. Also consider that
many of our written resources are not read linearly, so it becomes even more
important to use consistent terminology that does not require much context to
So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted.
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-10-05 17:30:12|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency|
|Previous:||From: Ron Mayer||Date: 2007-10-04 01:37:18|
|Subject: Re: Use of "postmaster"|