[uf-discuss] Re: Possible alternative methods for "include"

[Toby A Inkster]

Ryan King wrote:
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
>> It does claim that it's a "set" of class names, and in mathematical
>> parlance sets are unordered by definition, and must not contain
>> duplicates, but it's unlikely that the framers of the HTML 4.01 spec
>> intended the world "set" to be interpreted in that way -- far more
>> likely they were referring to the layman's definition of the word.
> 
> Specs aren't generally written in layman's terms.

What I meant was that the vast majority of the words used in most 
specifications are not explicitly defined, nor are other normative 
references provided giving a definition of them. This is fair enough.
You don't want to read through an enormous glossary at the end of a 
specification defining words such as "first", "down" and "the". When
a word is not explicitly defined in the specification itself, or in
a reference, one should assume that the normal everyday meaning of
the word is implied.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that of all the entries in the
Oxford English Dictionary, the word "set" has the longest, spanning 
several pages. In the context used in the HTML 4.01 spec, I find it
unlikely that they were specifically referring to the mathematical
usage of the word "set", unless they were attempting to be
deliberately obscure.

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 7 days, 21:25.]

                          Looking Ahead to Perl 6
              http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/02/05/perl6/