0

The XML file is being transcribed verbatim to generate the form on the web page.

Perhaps literal fits better than verbatim, as the former denotes a looser correlation (in my opinion) than the latter, or maybe I'm just splitting hairs. Either way, neither of these really conveys my intended message. I'm looking for a word or expression that conveys an exact 1:1 correlation between everything in A and everything in B, but B is not actually a "word for word" copy of A. A and B don't have to be XML and a web page. You can think of them like apples and oranges. If you were going to generate an orange based on an apple (whatever that means), and every aspect of the apple would be reflected in an aspect of the orange that was generated...how would you describe the precision of that transcription or translation process?

I apologize if there are any issues with this question, or it is inappropriate for this stack exchange - this is my first time posting on this stack exchange.

17
  • "Literal" could not be placed in your sentence directly in place of verbatim: "The XML file is being transcribed literal to generate the form on the web page." is not a good sentence.
    – Catija
    Aug 13 '15 at 22:18
  • 1
    You are probably referring to a conversion : something that is changed from one use, function, or purpose to another.
    – user66974
    Aug 13 '15 at 22:21
  • 3
    Ah, you're going outside of the rendering of English script A to English script B; this now becomes subject-specific and perhaps off-topic. The mathematician would call a 1 to 1 functional mapping an injective mapping. Aug 13 '15 at 22:36
  • 1
    How about "functionally equivalent"? Two versions of XML might differ in areas that don't affect the output of a rendering agent. They thus wouldn't be identical, but would be functionally equivalent.
    – deadrat
    Aug 13 '15 at 23:21
  • 1
    @deadrat: "functionally equivalent" may be suitable. But as other proposals (mine included), its more or less a as a pleonasm with "transcribed"
    – Graffito
    Aug 13 '15 at 23:53
1

In mathematics, a relation between the elements in a starting set (the domain, the set of input items) and those in a target set (the codomain) is said to be injective (one-to-one) if every element of the codomain is mapped to by at most one element of the domain. If every element of the codomain is mapped to by exactly one element of the domain, the function is bijective. {Wikipedia}

This can be applied in various situations: mapping numbers to their doubles; mapping dogs to their owners (here, depending on the starting sets, not all mappings will be surjections!); mapping letters to their coded substitutes in a simple substitution cipher ...

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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