Re: Wording: NUL(L) byte

On 24 April 2015 at 03:34, Theodore M Rolle, Jr. <stercor@gmail.com> wrote: > <!ENTITY nul 'NUL'> preserves the meaning. > The second example 'NUL byte' mixes the two metaphors. > How about: > <!ENTITY NUL 'NUL'> OR > <!ENTITY null 'null byte'> OR > <!ENTITY null 'null character'> OR > <!ENTITY null 'null thingy'> <-----<<< Not really. > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> > wrote: > >> Hi everybody! >> >> While updating the German translation, I've found several changes of the >> wording "NUL byte" to "NULL byte". Now I've stumbled upon the >> isset man >> page[1], where it says "&null; byte". > > >> I think it would be good if there will be a general guideline on how to >> spell this byte. ASCII uses the abbreviation "NUL"; in C one speaks of >> "null character" and "null-terminated strings", which are also known as >> ASCIIZ (note the trailing "Z" for "zero"). Wikipedia seems to prefer >> the abbreviation "NUL". >> > I believe that the most correct term is "null character", with the term "null byte" (more?) common and both abbreviated to "NUL" (so, "NUL character" is bad). I think that we should use the term "null character" where possible, "null byte" where the word "character" might be confusing or "byte" makes more sense, and only use "NUL" as a clarification where the term is used alongside or in comparison to our "null" type or "NULL" value. We should not be using "<type>null</type> character" or "&null; character" when referring to the null character. > >> For consistency, and particularly with regard to translations, I suggest >> to introduce the character entity reference &nul; (which would have to >> carefully be distinguished from &null;). I'm not sure whether the >> respective entity should include the word "byte" or not. Some ideas: >> >> <!ENTITY nul 'NUL'> >> > <!ENTITY nul 'NUL byte'> >> <!ENTITY nul 'null byte'> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> [1] <http://php.net/manual/en/function.isset.php> >> >> -- >> Christoph M. Becker >> > >