Subject: Re: [xsl] FOO vs FO From: "Jennifer Hochgesang" <jenniferh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:39:36 -0500 |
more than you could ever dream of on the etymology of foobar- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3092.txt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wendell Piez" <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [xsl] FOO vs FO > I think we are asymptotically approaching some kind of "knowledge" on this > important question. > > My own folk etymology cortical implant tells me that "Foobar" is an > adaptation of "FUBAR", a military acronym (originally ca. WWII) that stands > for "f****d up beyond all recognition". As in "Situation normal -- foobar". > > (Jim, "Fouled Up Beyond All Belief" would be "FUBAB" wouldn't it? but it'd > get past your obscenity filter anyhow.) > > How it got from that, to being CS nonsense-word placeholders, I dunno. But > of course a great deal of early programming happened in the military. David > Marston's explanation of "foo" from the Smokey Stover comic strip seems (to > this ear) altogether plausible. Maybe when they needed a second one, since > they had "foo" they went to "bar" since they all knew about "fubar" (and > didn't care too much how it was spelled). > > Anyone have a notion as to "baz"? > > Anyway, > Wendell > > At 07:58 AM 9/6/01, Doug wrote: > >Does anyone know why FOO was chosen to mean anything? > > > > >From the W3 site, in a message at > >"http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/msg00613.html", someone asked > >"What does foo.bar mean in CSS?". The response was: > > > > Ah, a puzzle! > > > > 1. The literal answer is probably not the answer the author is > >looking for. > > > > 2. `foo' and `bar' are commonly used as placeholders for arbitrary > >character strings. > > > >In XML Bible by E. Harold, page 52, the author says that FOO means "whatever > >you want it to". Further down, on page 517, we find that for formatting > >objects, the defacto standard prefix is "FO". > > > >Why was FOO and FO chosen instead of something less confusing? I can > >understand FO for formatting objects, but why FOO? Why not XXX or ABC?? > > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > > ___&&__&_&___&_&__&&&__&_&__&__&&____&&_&___&__&_&&_____&__&__&&_____&_&&_ > "Thus I make my own use of the telegraph, without consulting > the directors, like the sparrows, which I perceive use it > extensively for a perch." -- Thoreau > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] FOO vs FO, Wendell Piez | Thread | Re: [xsl] FOO vs FO, Mitch C Amiano |
Re: [xsl] Trying to find a working , G. Ken Holman | Date | RE: [xsl] Storing HTML in XML, Casadome, Francisco |
Month |