Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: Stef@ICS.UCI.EDU (Einar Stefferud)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Sending mail from internet to x400 networks
Message-ID: <23236.664826725@nma>
Date: 25 Jan 91 20:08:07 GMT
Reply-To: Stef@ICS.UCI.EDU
Lines: 19
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 25 Jan 91 15:39:53 +0700.
             <9101251439.AA18288@cernvax.cern.ch>

Hello Maria -- The fact that various instances of A and P can be found
in various 987 tables and other cases does not diminish the logic that A
and P are more ambiguous that ADMD and PRMD when written on a business
card or on a list of attendees addresses at a meeting, or
where/when-ever.

The issue is actually quite minor, but then, so is the cost of the ink
and the business-card-real-estate required to carry the addtional 3
characters in each attribute name.

I don't quite see why the standards bodies should suddenly become so
concerned with trading terseness and brevity for clarity when it comes
to printing other people's business cards.  They cerainly don't take
this (conservation oriented) position when it comes to counting the
characters in PDUs that consume bandwidth in their protocols?

Anyway, I am only trying to highlight the relationship between clarity
of understanding of the mass of users and the potential savings (of ink
and paper) to be achieved by using more cryptic codes.  Cheers...\Stef