[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 julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Jun 14 06:46:10 PDT 2014


On 2014-06-14 14:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.

No, format is things like plain text, HTML, or PDF. Let's clarify that 
upfront.

> 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/.

These are file formats, no?

Best regards, Julian




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list