"Application" vs. "language"
The standard SGML/XML-ese term for a specific document format (as specified by a DTD or schemum or the like) is an SGML/XML "application" (which is why XML is said to be an SGML "application profile"); however, an editor has changed this to "language" in the definition, which does make some sense: most people reading the entry probably aren't familiar with SGML/XML-ese, and "application" can sound like "program". But then, the word "language" is already in the expansion, so repeating it isn't terribly helpful, anyway … what do y'all think? —RuakhTALK 06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Any takers? Encyclopedic. Supposed Wikipedia article does not exist. SemperBlotto 09:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I am currently building up a Wiktionary and Wikipedia entry for VHML. I am doing this carefully so that I do not have to make many minor edits. The website www.vhml.org has existed since 2001, and the language was a deliverable of a European Union 5th Framework project called Interface. I created the Wiktionary entry first for VHML, with a redirect for the phrase "Virtual Human Markup Language". I am now carefully creating/previewing the Wikipedia entry. If I am doing this incorrectly, please let me know. What is the procedure now for removal from the RFV list? Raytrace 13:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone else (not you) needs to verify that it is a term in the English language, and that is meets our criteria for inclusion. Abbreviations and initialisms should just have a simple definition of what the letters stand for - this one if far too encyclopedic. SemperBlotto 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Can this not be in the form of the references cited in the definition. It has been used by w3C; a workshop on VHML was requested by the European Union 5th Framework IST bigwigs; it is actually referenced in wikipedia articles already, and hence I thought I should so something about providing solid information about it. In terms of the content, I was not certain if it should stand complete as an independant entity, or should simply link to the wikipedia article. Raytrace 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cited. Also numerous additional Scholar hits. DCDuring 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
RFV passed.—msh210℠ 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)