• From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
• To: Arjun Ray <arjun.ray@v...>
• Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 19:25:38 -0400

On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 14:12 -0400, Arjun Ray wrote:

> On a more serious note, _is_ XML terminilogy "standardized" in any
> way? 

The XML Recommendation and the XML Information Set (infoset) are the
closest we come.

My first reaction would be to stay well away from a spec that claimed to
understand XML and then confused tag, element and attribute. Sometimes
I'd be the one to lose out, though, I expect.

> 
> For 'tag', I would argue that it means (the entirety of) the markup at
> either the start or the end of an element.

Ys. tags are physical, elements are logical.

>  While any other intended
> meaning is probably a lack of RTFM, there's no denying the attraction
> of short monosyllabic substitutes for long-winded terminology.  Hence,
> sadly, the ubiquitous misuse of 'tag'.

That and the crazily-named DOM function 'get elements by tagname", as if
there were tags with names other than start, end, and, possibly, empty.

Liam


-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Terminology (was: RFC for XML Object Parsing)
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • RE: Terminology (was: RFC for XML Object Parsing)
    • From: Brian Aberle <xmlboss@l...>

• References:
  • RFC for XML Object Parsing
    • From: Brian Aberle <xmlboss@l...>
  • Terminology (was: RFC for XML Object Parsing)
    • From: Arjun Ray <arjun.ray@v...>