Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'd like to describe the activity of turning a set of elements into its canonical (standardized base) form.

Some candidates seem to be:

  • canonicalize
  • canonize

I'd also like to name the device performing this action, candidates so far:

  • canonicalizer
  • canonizer

None of these look quite right, what's the right term?

share|improve this question
    
Related: “Normalization” vs. “canonicalization”. I think this is really something you should probably take to programmers.se –  FumbleFingers Feb 18 '12 at 16:48
    
@FumbleFingers Programmers better ask linguists before taking the English lexicon into their hands, right? –  Kris Feb 19 '12 at 8:31
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 0 down vote accepted

I always use canonize myself, because it’s short to type and accords with canon law.

You could also use normalize or standardize, both of which are preferable to the wholly asquerous regularize, a sad and overburdened word brought to you by the unregulated coiners.

Probably beatify isn’t going far enough, though. :)

The thing that does it is a normalizer, if you don’t care for canonizer or pope.

share|improve this answer
1  
I think “canonicalization” is probably more of a highly specialised term that doesn't overlap in meaning with "canonize". –  FumbleFingers Feb 18 '12 at 16:49
    
"Canonize" has too much religious association ('declare someone a saint'). –  Mitch Feb 18 '12 at 16:58
    
@Mitch I know it has a lot of religious association, but better than than neologuing uselessly hyperoverextended words terminating in a clattering cavalcade of multiple derivationalistic suffixes. You just can’t take these things too seriously. People use ‘bless’ in a corporate sense without worrying about their local priest. –  tchrist Feb 18 '12 at 17:04
    
What does "asquerous" mean? –  jwpat7 Feb 18 '12 at 23:22
1  
So I'm going to go with 'canonize', working from the root word, despite the computing use here...mostly because I feel like taking a stand and partially because uttering 'canonicalizer' is atrocious. –  Mark Elliot Feb 21 '12 at 2:27
show 1 more comment

In computing contexts, the standard verb is definitely canonicalize. Its agent noun is canonicalizer, though that's not as common as the verb itself.

Hence, from assorted RFCs and W3C technical reports:

To canonicalize an element including its namespaces, attributes, and content, the node-set must actually contain all of the nodes corresponding to these parts of the document, not just the element node. [link]

The "include" and "exclude" SigData fields modify the default behavior of the label canonicalizer. [link]

On first glance it would seem a simple enough exercise to canonicalize the XML encoded query and then insert it into the query portion of the URL. [link]

Any XML document, say X, processed by a canonicalizer, will produce an XML Document X'. [link]

However, designers of applications, protocols, or specifications are encouraged to use the information from the IANA Language Subtag Registry to support canonicalizing language tags and ranges in order to map grandfathered and obsolete tags or subtags into modern equivalents. [link]

(And, you didn't ask for this, but the action noun is canonicalization.)

share|improve this answer
    
I think you’ll find canon-ic-al-iz-at-ion to be one of those overly academic words that collapses under its own weight: the poor thing has five derivational suffixes smacked onto its sorry end. One is ok; two are tolerable if necessary; but five is beyond the pale. It sounds stuffy and pretentious. A native speaker would use a shorter and more convenient word. And yes, I’m a professional computer scientist, so I happen to know whereof I speak on this. It collapses under a clattering cavalcade of catenated coprocessizationalizing fooishnessesesses. –  tchrist Feb 19 '12 at 0:03
    
@tchrist: Of course you know whereof you speak, since you speak only of your own opinion. (Everybody's got one.) As a native English speaker and a professional programmer, I'm not inclined to be cowed by your stated credentials, sorry. And your count of derivational affixes is somewhat debatable, since -ical and -ation are functioning here as single units. But your opinion is perfectly valid, and I don't intend to denigrate it. I even half-agree with it. But only half. ;-) –  ruakh Feb 19 '12 at 0:31
    
The reason -ical and -ation count as two each is because of minimal pairs like historic/historical and hyphenate/hyphenation. –  tchrist Feb 19 '12 at 0:48
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.