Re: Terminology proposals

Nice!


> ## ixml grammars
> An *ixml input grammar* is any valid ixml grammar which is provided as one of the inputs to an *ixml processor*.


I would prefer just "ixml grammar", since an ixml grammar only exists to be an input to an ixml processor.


> The *ixml specification grammar* is the grammar that specifies the syntax of all ixml grammars. It is included in the *ixml specification*.


That's fine.


> ## ixml inputs
> There are two inputs to an *ixml processor*:
> 1. An *ixml input grammar*.
> 2. An *ixml input string*.


I think "input string" ought to be enough, since any string may be an input to an ixml processor.


> ## ixml parser
> An *ixml parser* is a parser constructed from an *ixml input grammar*.


"constructed from" doesn't work for me. I would prefer "that uses an ixml grammar to recognise an input string". But there is the possibility of confusion here, because we also use "ixml parser" to mean the thing that parses the ixml, rather than the input string (even though, by elaboration, an ixml parser¹ is an ixml parser².)


¹A parser *for* ixml
²A parser using a grammar defined in ixml, parsing any string defined by such a grammar.


> ## ixml outputs
> ### *vxml*
> The output of processing the *ixml input string* with an *ixml processor* is *Visible XML* (*vxml*).


"I like "visible XML", but less enamoured of "vxml", since it makes it sound like it is some special version of XML. I think it should just be "XML" (and it's the only place where XML is involved, as output).


Steven



On Tuesday 25 January 2022 12:10:20 (+01:00), Bethan Tovey-Walsh wrote:


issue email, so the original version of this message was lost. Apologies!


Attached is an edit of Dave's terminology document. I've proposed some general revisions, and added some terms that I think/hope others may find useful.




In particular, I've been finding it hard to work out how to distinguish between the direct XML output of the ixml processor, before any extra processing to turn it into a desired output format. It can't really be an "ixml document", because that risks confusion with the ixml input. And just calling it the "ixml output" was becoming extremely frustrating when I wanted to find a way to distinguish it from the result of post-processing it, e.g. to produce JSON, or a different flavour of XML, or whatever.




Then it struck me that "Visible XML" ("vxml") might be a good term for the output of the ixml processor. It picks up Steven's brilliant "invisible" metaphor, and highlights the main aim of ixml: taking the implied structure of the input string and making it explicit, or "visible".




I look forward to your comments and criticisms when we meet, and thank you in advance for corrections to any mistakes.




Very best wishes,




BTW