RE: [xtm-wg] Re : Style Guide for XTM specs

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

> [Bernard Vatant]
> > We have a constant mix-up of language and meta-language
> > So, for the reader (and writer) to be able to make the distinction,
> > the spec terms should be typed in a characteristic {style} ... Any
> > word not in that style is "meta", even if the same words are used
> > at both level, which is bound to occur with e.g. "names" or
> > "subjects", even if it should be good to avoid it for clarity of
> > discourse.
 
> [Sam Hunting] 
> >I'm having a hard time translating this into a quasi-mechanical
> process. 

[james mason]
> The quasi-SGML source for ISO 8879 contained pretty extensive markup

(1) This gives me an opportunity to thank Dr. James Mason for reviewing
the style guide before I posted it.

(2) I should have said, perhaps, "rule-governed" rather than
"mechanical." Of course this issue is in the descriptive markup
solution space.

What I want, I guess, is a rule anyone who is sick, stressed, tired,
and frantic to catch an airplane can apply accurately when editing the
text. When to mark up as meta, and when not to, is still a judgment
call, is it not? Frankly, I'd rather try to eliminate "discourse
conflation", not ameliorate it. Bernard argues this is not possible.
What do you think?

S.

S.

=====
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/337252/_/976828258/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com