On this page.... RSS 2.0 | Atom 1.0 | CDF
# Friday, November 18, 2005

I don't think any of us can get away from thinking WWF initially when we hear or read about Windows Workflow Foundation.  The other F's in WinFX (WCF and WPF) both abbreviate and use the natural acronym approach, but obviously, we can't use it for Windows Workflow Foundation.  This point is addressed in Scott Woodgate's blog here, and also in the webcast referenced here.  Scott thinks WF is an acceptable compromise, but I agree with one of the commenters on his blog that for consistency and disambiguation, we should use something with at least three letters.  Another commenter suggests WinWF, which is better but is still inconsistent and almost too long.

I suggest WFF.  The reasons are:
1) It is three letters, starts with W and ends with F, like the other WinFX foundations, so we achieve consistency.
2) It isn't used by anything I know of.
3) WF is actually a common acronym for WorkFlow in our industry.

So it would read Workflow Foundation, with the Windows being implicit, but we still get the consistency, disambiguation, and lack of other cultural references (that WWF has).

What do you think?  If you like it, start using it.  Microsoft has said they're not going to make an official one, so it is up to the populus to determine it, and the way for that to occur is via common usage.

Friday, November 18, 2005 9:45:05 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
Comments are closed.

The opinions expressed herein are solely my own personal opinions, founded or unfounded, rational or not, and you can quote me on that.

Thanks to the good folks at dasBlog!

Copyright © 2020 J. Ambrose Little