Yes, he means HSL (or sometimes HLS), though the abbreviations used in the wild for these models are wildly inconsistent.
Here’s the first footnote in the Wikipedia article I wrote about HSL/HSV:
In Joblove and Greenberg’s (1978) paper first introducing HSL, they called HSL lightness "intensity", called HSL saturation "relative chroma", called HSV saturation "saturation" and called HSV value "value". They carefully and unambiguously described and compared three models: hue/chroma/intensity, hue/relative chroma/intensity, and hue/value/saturation. Unfortunately, later authors were less fastidious, and current usage of these terms is inconsistent and often misleading.http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=807362
[Worth noting: Joblove and Greenberg’s terms weren’t really consistent with standard color science definitions, but they were at least well defined at the top of their paper.]
EDIT: misunderstood, thought it was referring to original article not grandparent.
<strike>
No. HSV and HSL are two very similar physically-based color models that only loosely map to perceived brightness and perceived grayness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSL_and_HSV
They are nice cylindrical shapes because they are straightforward transformations of the RGB cube-shaped color space.
Yes, but in davidjohnstone’s link which yoodenvranx is talking about, what that Wikipedia page calls HSL is being called HCL, whereas what you are calling HCL is being called Lch. (CIE LCh or CIELCH, optionally with a subscript 'ab' to distinguish it from the cylindrical version of CIELUV, would be a better, relatively unambiguous name. By convention, the C should be capitalized.)
> HSV and HCL
Should't it be "HSL" instead of "HCL"?