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

My inclination is a hybrid of your suggestions.
We should say that LFB Arrays are used to represent tabular data 
structures, including things that are frequently called arrays or tables.
Whenever we refer to the LFB structure in the abstract, we should 
refer to it as an array.
And we should try to use array as much as possible the rest of the time.

Yours,
Joel

At 10:04 AM 11/8/2006, tom.petch wrote:
>----- 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.