[rfc-i] terminology: format vs representation, was: Input Syntax vs Canonical Form/rfcedstyle vs Output Formats [was: Re: Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06]
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Jun 14 04:42:55 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-04 23:09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 2. The document's reference to 'formats' is really to
>> 'representations', which is a meaningful difference. Formatting is
>> about layout. Representation is really at the level of different
>> language; html vs xml is not a matter of format, but of representation.
>> The semantic difference in terms is more than mere quibbling, IMO.
>> When referring to other representations the document should say say
>> something like "other representations' or "non-xml2rfc representations"
>> or the like. But again, I'm not clear why /this/ document needs to make
>> many or any such references. In any event, within a document like this,
>> saying 'canonical' as the reference for what is being defined is too
> Good catch. The next draft will use "representation" when talking about the files published.
A big -1.
When the spec (in this case: v2) it *is* about formats, as in "file
format". To use a different term here is totally confusing.
(I'm bringing this up now because I noticed that the v3 and v2 documents
now disagree on the terminology, and I strongly believe that v2 uses the
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest