At 11:11 PM -0500 7/17/97, Roy Tennant wrote:
[snip]
>...Another somewhat major
>change is replacing "Document" with "Text". I am convinced that given the
>top levels we are discussing Text makes much more sense than Document.
>But, as always, I am open to persuasion.
This is *definitely* a positive change. "document" was far too vague and
iffy of a term (after all, one could argue that an image is a document.
Also, the fact that the term "document" is used to mean a computer file,
its use could lead to serious confusion. "Text" is fairly unambiguous,
especially since most people have come to understand "text" as referring to
a printed work, or a work that contains mostly words.
My only question is whether there is any way to indicate the sensory form
of the resource. For example, a recording of someone reading a poem vs.
the text version of the poem. Or a text of a novel vs. a book-on-tape vs.
a movie created from the novel. This is different, in my mind, from the
format, as a recording can be in many different formats--RealAudio, wave,
snd, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------
[ Jordan Reiter ]
[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[ The universe got you involved." --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]
--------------------------------------------------------
|