[rfc-i] terminology: format vs representation, was: Input Syntax vs Canonical Form/rfcedstyle vs Output Formats [was: Re: Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06]

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Sat Jun 14 05:30:51 PDT 2014


On 6/14/2014 1:42 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> When referring to other representations the document should say say
>>> something like "other representations' or "non-xml2rfc representations"
>>> or the like. 
...
>> 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
> right term)


Well, I appreciate the desire to keep consistent terminology across
versions of a document.

However the problem here is that the term that has been getting used has
been getting used incorrectly, resulting in what has looked to me like
quite a bit of confusion amongst folk talking about choices.

Format is things like space vs. tab and cr vs. lf.

The discussions here have been about issues that are far more basic,
such as xml vs. pdf.  That is not format.  It is basic design of the way
a document is /represented/.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list