I think this comment raises a very good point and I struggle to see sure why it's proving so unpopular so far. It's true that the submitted blog post doesn't e

I think this comment raises a very good point and I struggle to see sure why it's proving so unpopular so far. It's true that the submitted blog post doesn't expand the CSP initialism -- this has been acknowledged as an oversight by the author and the post will be edited, as it's simply good practice as recommended in several style guides [1][2][3][4]. But the post's very first sentence links to a previous entry about the same subject; there, the topic is explained to readers who may not be familiar with it. There is simply no reason for a follow-up post, which this submission is, to repeat the explanations given by its predecessor. Meanwhile, a reader approaching the post with confidence about its topic will have realized rapidly what it is and isn't about. So given the intense disagreement, what approach would have been preferable? [1] http://amastyleinsider.com/2011/11/04/cheat-sheet-for-abbreviations-style/ http://amastyleinsider.com/2011/11/04/cheat-sheet-for-abbrev... [2] http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch10/ch10_toc.html http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch10/ch10_toc.html [3] https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style