5 ms·

I believe that the surprise would come from it not meaning "get the f* out." Which makes perfect sense to me - GTFO has a meaning, and re-backronyming it can on

I believe that the surprise would come from it not meaning "get the f* out." Which makes perfect sense to me - GTFO has a meaning, and re-backronyming it can only harm understanding of the standard. Also consider non-native English speakers, which is really important when developing international standards. The fact that someone suggested a corresponding "HTTP TITS" should set off at least minor warning bells that "HTTP GTFO" is not a good thing to put in the standard. I certainly don't want to see HTTP LOL (Long Overdue Listen), HTTP WAT (Wireless Ask Transmit), etc. Humor is great, but good standards are better.

genericuser 13y ago
How does surprise about what the acronym stands for lead to confusion about what it does? This question is hopefully more along the lines of what I wanted to ask and clearly didn't. Edit: To further clarify I mean surprise about what it stands for when both interpretations convey a similar idea.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
WAT is a perfectly valid acronym, actually.
- Crito 13y ago
  Certainly no more problematic than SMTP's HELO...
Crito 13y ago
> I believe that the surprise would come from it not meaning "get the f out." Which makes perfect sense to me - GTFO has a meaning, and re-backronyming it can only harm understanding of the standard.* Considering the general highlevel meaning of "get the fuck out" and "General Termination of Future Operations" in the context of this protocol is the same, is it really going to harm anybodies understanding of the standard? Worse case scenario, people know what it does, but are surprised that it is an acronym for something "SFW". > Also consider non-native English speakers, which is really important when developing international standards. Is the concern here that they will not be familiar with the typical "internet meaning" of GTFO? They might not get the joke, but I don't see how that would harm their understanding of the standard. They'll read about GTFO, learn that it means "General Termination of Future Operations", learn what that means, and they'll be good to go. Just because they don't get a chuckle out of it doesn't mean that their ability to work with it is impeded.

genericuser 13y ago

How does surprise about what the acronym stands for lead to confusion about what it does? This question is hopefully more along the lines of what I wanted to ask and clearly didn't. Edit: To further clarify I mean surprise about what it stands for when both interpretations convey a similar idea.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

WAT is a perfectly valid acronym, actually.

Crito 13y ago
Certainly no more problematic than SMTP's HELO...

Crito 13y ago

> I believe that the surprise would come from it not meaning "get the f out." Which makes perfect sense to me - GTFO has a meaning, and re-backronyming it can only harm understanding of the standard.* Considering the general highlevel meaning of "get the fuck out" and "General Termination of Future Operations" in the context of this protocol is the same, is it really going to harm anybodies understanding of the standard? Worse case scenario, people know what it does, but are surprised that it is an acronym for something "SFW". > Also consider non-native English speakers, which is really important when developing international standards. Is the concern here that they will not be familiar with the typical "internet meaning" of GTFO? They might not get the joke, but I don't see how that would harm their understanding of the standard. They'll read about GTFO, learn that it means "General Termination of Future Operations", learn what that means, and they'll be good to go. Just because they don't get a chuckle out of it doesn't mean that their ability to work with it is impeded.