• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: Xml is _not_ self describing
• From: "Nicolas Lehuen" <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
• Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:03:28 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>,"Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6252@HQ5><p0433010cb86a3a7555a4@[192.168.254.4]> <003a01c19e13$69ecac10$0100000a@nico> <1011138298.10595.37.camel@l...>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
To: "Nicolas Lehuen" <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
Cc: <xml-dev@l...>; "Elliotte Rusty Harold"
<elharo@m...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 12:44 AM
Subject: Re:  Xml is _not_ self describing


> On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 17:24, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
> > Maybe the term of "self-describing" should be made more precise by
> > specifying the intended audience and purpose of the self-description.
> > The -ing for is tricky : "self-describing" seems to mean that the data
by
> > itself can reify its meaning.
>
> While this may be technically correct, I think the point itself is
> meaningless if not downright dull.

Ouch.

> Can we stop arguing about non-existent claims of magical goodness?  It's
> almost as bad as limericks.

Agreed :) I'll banish 'self-describing' from my vocabulary, and just make as
if I can't read it from now on :).

Regards,
Nicolas

• References:
  • RE: Xml is _not_ self describing
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • RE: Xml is _not_ self describing
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Xml is _not_ self describing
    • From: "Nicolas Lehuen" <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
  • Re: Xml is _not_ self describing
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: processing trees
• Next by Date: RE: processing trees
• Previous by thread: Re: Xml is _not_ self describing
• Next by thread: Re: Xml is _not_ self describing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread