Another instance of this are DNS - which is pretty much always called domain name server server (DNS server)
Though you can at least have an argument there, as the first server could theoretically be the process that's running on the hardware/virtual server (which would be the second server).
even the original rfcs from 198x only write about domain name servers though, which is why the DNS server is still a misnomer of the same kind, even if my attempt of rationalizing it failed - as that's the only thing you've called into question with that.
Because if domain name system server makes sense to you, then language server protocol server has to make sense in the same way, as that's literally the same concept
LSP Server does make sense, the problem is that the title calls it a "HTML LSP", not a "HTML LSP Server". The thing described is a server, not a protocol.
Coming from a different background, LSP to me means “linguistic service provider” (i.e. human language translation). I wasn’t familiar with this LSP [0] at all.
I think this is applying pedantry in the wrong place.
Language Server, you say? Ok, it serves a language. But how? Using LSP? Ok, sounds like an LSPS. The client would be an LSPC. LSP is not the only language an LS can speak, it's overwhelmingly dominant, yes, but the Dart language used to speak its own protocol, and SLIME is also a distinct protocol for what we may reasonably describe as language servers. Similarly, although HTTP(S) is the only hypertext protocol in common use, we don't call it a Hypertext Server, we call it an HTTP server.
I think it's more than alright to elide LSPS as just LSP. At this point that's idiomatic. But my point is that the term is anti-redundant, unlike ATM Machine and other usual suspects in this perennial Internet topic: it elides, rather than duplicates, information.
Yeah, that detail of terminology always bothered me a bit. That said, we do call HTTP servers that, not “Hypertext servers”. Then again, we don’t call an HTTP server “an HTTP”. :)
