Re: terminology wa Re: XML basics Re: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: terminology wa Re: XML basics Re: LC model draft
draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt


> We should certainly be consistent about what we call the things.
> Since I find the term subscript very useful, I tend to think of arrays.
> Part of the reason that I like subscript is that it is clearly
> distinct from the content key.  In contrast, the table index is not
> so clearly different.

Ok so how about replacing all uses of table with array? a quick browse of -model
shows array in use about 200 times and table 45 including such phrases as
'array index of a table' :-)

Trouble is,.many uses of table are as part of a well known phrase such as 'dscp
mapping table'  'forwarding table'  ' frequency table' so I suspect that won't
work.  Perhaps the best thing would be to state that no semantic difference is
meant between the use of table (widely used in s3) and array (widely used in s4)

Tom Petch

>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> At 11:30 AM 11/6/2006, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > My 'arrays' are usually 'tables' with rows and columns which
> > works at least when
> > > they are 2-D;
> >
> >Table is a better name.