[Proj] Re: Linear projections reply

[strebe]

On Jun 30, 2008, at 4:03:34 PM, "Michael Ossipoff" <mikeo2106 at msn.com> 
wrote:
> Cylindric projections are a specialization of pseudocylindric. 
> Whether it is incorrect to call a cylindric projection 
> "pseudocylindric" is something best left to > those of uselessly 
> pedantic temperment.

Oh come on now, you're saying that no one should ever say anything 
about the merits of a term.
I fail to see how my comment could be interpreted anywhere nearly so 
generally.
No one can deny that saying that a cylindrical projection is 
"pseudocylindrical" has something of a self-contradictory sound. How 
about generalized-cylindrical, or cylindricalish, or something like 
that? Maybe some would say that "generalized-cylindrical" is too long, 
and that "cylindricalish" is too colloquial-sounding. But the -ish, 
-isch, -isk, -ic suffix has a lot of historical validity. Maybe it 
acquired its colloquial popularity because of its brevity, but that 
shouldn't deny us the use of that brevity.
This does not seem to be going anywhere. Good luck.

Regards,
-- daan Strebe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20080630/d4943d91/attachment.html>