[rfc-i] terminology: format vs representation, was: Input Syntax vs Canonical Form/rfcedstyle vs Output Formats [was: Re: Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06]
tbray at textuality.com
Sat Jun 14 08:05:37 PDT 2014
Well, these are really Internet Media Types. But "format" is probably an
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
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest