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

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Sat Jun 14 08:05:37 PDT 2014


Well, these are really Internet Media Types. But "format" is probably an
acceptable shorthand.
On Jun 14, 2014 6:47 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140614/a4203372/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list