W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2008

RE: [Bug 5152] tableau presentation difficult to understand

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 23:51:43 -0000
To: "'Pete Cordell'" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01ac01c84e63$9804a830$6401a8c0@turtle>

> >> At the risk of upsetting people, why do we use the word "tableau" 
> >> when most people would use "table"?  To me, this is what I call 
> >> gratuitous pomposity.
> >
> > Gratuitous pomposity? Nonsense, just charming eccentricity.
> As you didn't include an exclamation mark at the end (or 
> smiley - arghh) I'll assume this is a serious comment rather 
> than a joke comment...

The comment was intended to be light-hearted. There are many places where
the schema spec is indeed excessively pompous, and it falls into a number of

(a) a slightly eccentric choice of terminology, of which this is an example

(b) self-justification. I think we've got rid of some of the worst examples
of this

(c) unnecessarily long and complex sentence structures

(d) over-reliance on typographical devices that make the text harder to
read, whereas typography should always strive to make it easier.

Of these, I find the use of eccentric terms like "tableau" the least
objectionable. The worst terminological offences are terms that appear to be
used in a technical sense, but actually have no definition: an example is

Michael Kay
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2008 23:52:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:07 UTC