JoAnn Hackos wrote:
Is there a reason that we cannot use "document type" except for an
intrusion into the DTD world? I think information developers and
architects are more likely to understand the term "doc type" rather
than a more esoteric term like "vocabulary"? I'd like to err on the
side of usability and user-centeredness if possible. JoAnn
"document type" is certainly the most accurate if you take it to mean
"abstract document type" (that is, a set of types distinct from any
implementation expression of them) but I think that most people don't
make that distinction, especially people like many of us with deep SGML
brain damage, where there was no obvious need to distinquish between the
abstract document type and its syntactic expression.
That's one reason I prefer "vocabulary"--it's completely (and in the
namespace spec, explicitly) divorced from any particular syntactic or
formal definition or expression of the vocabulary.
Cheers,
E.
eli...@innodata-isogen.com
www.innodata-isogen.com
16 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.ditaRe: [dita] proposal on "vocabulary" t...
.gif, .gif, .gif, 8 more