[MPEG-OTSPEC] "font directory" / "offset table" / "table directory"

Mon Aug 31 19:02:16 CEST 2020

I guess this is an issue of referring to, e.g., “foo directory” informally versus something that is a documented structure name, “FooDirectory”. The former might be ambiguous, but the latter should not be.

P.

From: Adam Twardoch (Lists) <list.adam at twardoch.com>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 9:38 AM
To: Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com>
Cc: MPEG OT Spec list (mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at) <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>; Simon Cozens <simon at simon-cozens.org>
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] "font directory" / "offset table" / "table directory"

Peter,

Thank you. My non-nativeness perhaps helps me in treating English in a way that is  somewhat analytical.

I agree that it's not ideal, and not natural for normal English. A "guest list", not a "guests list" is a list that has guests on it.

The problem is in the ambiguity of the word+subject structure, where the first word is an attributive (sorry, I used object by mistake earlier), and this attributive can be a noun or an adjective. English often has identical forms for nouns and adjectives, and has nouns that are used where other languages use an adjective.

This is typically no problem because context solves it. But in technical writing, the depluralization of attributives is confusing.

Prepositional attributes ("dirrctory of fonts") are clearer. Attributive nouns are almost always ambiguous: "font directory" may mean a directory that has fonts, like C:\Windows\Fonts, or a dirrctory that is inside a font and has something else (e.g. directory of tables in a font).

Microsoft talks about the "Fonts folder" in
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/add-a-font-b7c5f17c-4426-4b53-967f-455339c564c1<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsupport.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Foffice%2Fadd-a-font-b7c5f17c-4426-4b53-967f-455339c564c1&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc86a27f1eaed466414e008d84dcc4365%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637344886975653219&sdata=Hepw%2FhgsLK%2FGPtv%2FefsoSndNd5KxT%2FfDByQswEL1Fok%3D&reserved=0> largely because it's literally called "Fonts" of course, but also to make it a bit more clear.

A technical spec indtroduces a lot of new information, so we cannot rely that the reader will always easily decode the depluralized attributive noun from context.

The example of "font directory" is great: folders used to be called directories in Windows, and "font directory" is like "phone book" or "guest list" — a directory of fonts. But at the same time, a font directory legitimately is a directory of some things (tables in this case) inside a single font.

This is not a rare problem. I'm sure all of us have found ourselves thinking how to call a method or property of an object in programming when it worked with a single item vs. collection. With methods, it's easier because you put a verb there. But with properties, it's easy to get entangled in things like "Font.tableDict" vs. "Font.tablesDict" vs. "Font.dictTables" etc.

A.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 17:56, Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com<mailto:pgcon6 at msn.com>> wrote:

Adam

I find this to be an interesting perspective coming from a fluent but non-native English speaker.

Note your “car exhibition” example. (Or “car show’.) Anybody who went to one would expect to see cars—plural—and would not expect it to be held within a car.

A “phone directory” is a directory of phone numbers, not a directory that lives in a font.

I won’t delve into your other examples, but will stop at the above. In English, “cars exhibition” would be understood, but seem unnatural is not what I would ever expect to be said. Similarly, nobody would ever refer to a “phones directory”.

Thus, I disagree that “table directory reads like [a] directory of a table”. That is a construct Apple is using in “font directory”, but I dislike it because it feels like it ought to mean something other than what they intend. And “tables

directory” seems just as unnatural to me as would “phones directory” or “cars exhibition”. I would by default interpret “table directory” to mean a directory of tables, just as a “phone directory” is a directory of phones.

Peter

From: Adam Twardoch (Lists) <list.adam at twardoch.com<mailto:list.adam at twardoch.com>>

Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 8:47 AM

To: Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com<mailto:pgcon6 at msn.com>>

Cc: MPEG OT Spec list (mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at<mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>) <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at<mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>>; Simon Cozens <simon at simon-cozens.org<mailto:simon at simon-cozens.org>>

Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] "font directory" / "offset table" / "table directory"

Ps. compare "car exhibition" and "car door". First is an exhibition of cars in the sense that it has cars, second is door of a car in the sense that the car belongs to the car. For better understanding, "cars exhibition" of "exhibition

of cars" would aid better understanding of the first expression.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 17:42, Adam Twardoch (Lists) <list.adam at twardoch.com<mailto:list.adam at twardoch.com>> wrote:

Stylistic note:

noun1+noun2 constructs are object+subject constructs. If in doubt, they should be swapped (even in your head) and a preposition should be added, eg. home accessory = accessory for home

The most typical prepositions are for and of.

Table directory reads like directory of a table. Font directory reads like directory of a font. Tables directory reads like directory of tables.

Those object+subject constructs, even if I swap and add "of", are still not always clear, because A of B can mean that B is a property of A or that A includes B, typically as a collection.

If I say "point array", it can mean "array that belongs to a point" (like in home accessory the accessory belongs to the home), or it can somehow mean that it is an array of points. Saying "points array" is a bit more clear because it indicates

that it's probably an array of points. But still, it could be misunderstood.

Take the example of "object records": it can mean that there is an object which has some records, or that there are records of the type "object".

English is very poor in that context. The noun serialization may seem handy at first but it's full of traps, so at least for clarity we should make sure that if there is a plural involved, we pluralize the noun.

So "tables collection" and "records array" is better than "table collection" and "record array". And if something like RecordArray is historically fixed, we should add "array of records" in parantheses for clarification.

If you say "directory of tables" might still be best, rather than either font directory or table directory — because in case of collections, directories, tables, arrays, lists, it's more important what they contain than what they belong

to (the latter is implied by where the term is described).

A.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200831/e47fb28d/attachment-0001.html>