Microsoft must hire a better naming consultant.
A little while ago, they announced a new initiative called XDocs that will be incorporated in the next version of MS Office. Today that renamed that initiative «InfoPath»
With the name XDocs, it was clear that this was a document-related technology. The leading capital «X» has a lot of connotations associated with it (extreme, extensible, XML, generic unknown quantity, ActiveX/CaptiveX, etc.) that impart the idea that this is somehow a different kind of document.
The name «InfoPath» says less than nothing. To a tech savvy audience (XML-friendly hackers), this name is actually counterproductive: it has nothing to do with either XPath or the XML InfoSet, the two ideas that come to mind most easily. They would have been better off by randomly combining two words from /usr/dict/words: dumbvest, molehare, nukezoon, atomtote, normcomb, jerkbrin, bulldate[1].
Of course, Microsoft doesn't care. If they had wanted to hear my opinion, they would have given it to me first.
[1] Actual output from this script:
#!/usr/bin/perl -lw srand(); open(my $fh, "grep '^....\$' /usr/share/dict/words |"); chomp(my @w = <$fh>); print $w[rand @w] . $w[rand @w] for(1..20);
That leaves out the very last word. Here's an updated version:#!/usr/bin/perl -lw
srand();
open(my $fh, "grep '^....\$'/usr/share/dict/words |");
chomp(my @w = <$fh>);
print $w[rand $#w] . $w[rand $#w] for(1..20);
#!/usr/bin/perl
my @words;
@ARGV = "/usr/share/dict/words";
while (<>) {
push @words, $1 if/^(....)$/;
}
print $words[rand @words], $words[rand @words], "\n" for 1..20;
Re:buggy code?
gnat on 2003-02-10T19:29:05
With a few changes, this makes it a great way to find new military mission names:Sample output:#!/usr/bin/perl
my @words;
@ARGV = "/usr/share/dict/words";
while (<>) {
chomp;
push @words, $_ if length > 3;
}
print "Operation \u\L$words[rand @words]\E \u\L$words[rand @words]\E\n" for 1..20Obviously the next step is to plug in WordNet and move adjectives to the middle, because "Operation Cigarillo Misadvice" is definitely the right way around. Implementation eft as exercise to the reader (assuming the reader is Dan BrianOperation Demophobe Ammonolyze
Operation Tripsacum Qung
Operation Periodical Exultet
Operation Kymatology Disagreeably
Operation Aardvark Lycanthropist
Operation Prelawfully Alumbloom
Operation Microreaction Considering
Operation Englify Ananias
Operation Semihostile Gallocyanin
Operation Shantung Edaphology
Operation Rhythmicity Twinism
Operation Reluctance Acetotoluidine
Operation Poil Rewager
Operation Constantan Beadle
Operation Hysterogeny Pleasance
Operation Scathing Anoscopy
Operation Calibration Microsorex
Operation Spurlet Catechumen
Operation Manobo Squary
Operation Misadvice Cigarillo:-) --Nat
Re:buggy code?
dws on 2003-02-10T19:51:09
Wasn't "Operation Cigarillo Misadvice" the lead-in to the Cuban Bay of Pigs misadventure?Re:buggy code?
gnat on 2003-02-10T20:02:09
Nice! And "Operation Englify Ananias" was obviously the code name for the UK report on Iraq that was plagiarized and subtly distorted. "Operation Considering Microreaction" is how the US reacts to North Korea's nuclear posturing. And "Operation Scathing Anoscopy" is what'll happen to me if I don't get the Cookbook in on time.:-) --Nat
Re:buggy code?
ziggy on 2003-02-10T19:33:58
Yep. Fixed above. I intentionally did the grep out-of-process though.
Re:Won't you ever learn?
ziggy on 2003-02-10T18:31:54
The issue isn't they have to come out with trademarkable names. It's that their trademarkable names are consistently bad and confusing to their target audience. How many Microsoft customers can explain what "Microsoft DNS," "Microsoft DNA" or "Microsoft.NET" are really about anyway? "InfoPath" is another in a long series of trademarkable bad names.
