[uf-discuss] Re: Possible alternative methods for "include"
Toby A Inkster
mail at tobyinkster.co.uk
Wed Feb 6 07:27:14 PST 2008
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
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 188.8.131.52-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 7 days, 21:25.]
Looking Ahead to Perl 6
More information about the microformats-discuss