- From: Kevin Benson <kevin.m.benson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:50:13 -0400
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Kevin Benson wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > >> > > >> "This specification defines an abstract language for describing > > >> documents and applications, and some APIs for interacting with > > >> in-memory representations of resources that use this language." > > >> > > >> The phrase "abstract language" concerns me. It's not clear to me that > > >> a language can be abstract, nor is it clear to me what this phrase > > >> refers to, especially since it seems to be distinguished from the > > >> "concrete syntaxes that can be used to transmit resources that use > > >> this abstract language, two of which are defined in this > > >> specification." > > >> > > >> Perhaps there's some sort of abstract data model or information model > > >> here; but I don't believe that the word "language" is appropriate to > > >> describe this. Language as normally understood is a collection of > > >> actual words or symbols, written or spoken. It is not a collection of > > >> abstract concepts, at least not in any definition of the term I was > > >> able to find. > > >> > > >> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3Alanguage&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10 > > > > > > What term would you recommend rather than "language" that is more > > > understandable than "data model" or "information model"? > > > > > > Would "vocabulary" be ok? > > > > Rather than changing the word "language", how about changing the the > > word "abstract" instead... ...to an adjective such as "prescriptive" or > > "normative"... in order to describe the usage of the word "language" > > more purposefully ? > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > > > "Vocabulary" may be an an improvement over "abstract language"--I'd need > > to think further about that--but I think Kevin's suggestion is likely > > better. The spec defines a language (not abstract) with two syntaxes (or > > dialects, or variants). > > The word "abstract" is there to lead people away from thinking of HTML as > being a concrete language in the sense that, e.g., C++ is a "language" or > BibTex is a "language". I agree that "abstract" isn't really the right > word, but omitting it I think would cause more confusion here. > "Vocabulary" is wrong too, since it implies just a lexicon of words, > rather than a grammar, content models, etc. > > If anyone has any ideas for a better term than "abstract language" that > conveys all the richness that language does but without implying a syntax > exists, please let me know. >From reading your latest response, the applicable term that _first_ popped into my mind was: corpus (plural corpora or corpuses) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_corpus but I'll certainly think about alternatives in the context you/ve conveyed -- -- -- -- ???? K e V i N /?????????\ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090822/a624e4ce/attachment.htm>
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 02:50:13 UTC