Hi Carlos, I understand your point but the term human readable means, in our context, information for humans. In the same way that machine readable means information for machines. Perhaps we could use both as single terms: human-readable and machine-readable. I think that using in this way and clarifying their meanings in the glossary may solve this issue. Best, Laufer Em segunda-feira, 18 de maio de 2015, Carlos Iglesias < contact@carlosiglesias.es> escreveu: > 4. I want to ask why the term being used for information given for humans >>> is "human understandable data" instead of "human readable data". Sorry >>> about this comment (I know these discussions are long) but if we use >>> machine readable I think we should use human readable. Or, if we decide to >>> use human understandable we should also use machine understandable. >>> >> >> I changed the term because of the discussions that we had before about >> this. For me its also ok to use machine readable (in fact, i prefer machine >> readable). I'm gonna replace for machine readable and let's see if someone >> else disagrees. >> >> > My memories are that the discussion came from things such as XML, JSON > (and other txt based formats) that are in fact human readable but not > necessary human understandable (unless we mean human only equals > programmers). > > Best, > CI. > -- . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. .
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2015 02:47:32 UTC