• To: "'michael.h.kay@n...'" <michael.h.kay@n...>, 'Elliotte Rusty Harold' <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Xml is _not_ self describing
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:02:09 -0600

Aw heck, Kosh.  The answer doesn't point to itself?

The limericks were fun until someone pounced with 
a set of rules and then the laughter stopped and 
we went right into design work.

Note, when a pricey piece of software is offered, 
it IS real work.  If there is value on the table, 
gamblers are pros and the guy telling them they should 
be watching the game for the thrill of the sport will 
be booted out of the bar if not shot outright.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:michael.h.kay@n...]

> >A label is not a name unless it is meaningful.
> >Natural language is not self-describing unless
> >you were taught it.

Which reminds me of that delightful way of expressing Russell's paradox: "is
the adjective non-self-describing a self-describing adjective or not?"

Perhaps the fact that the notion of self-description leads quickly to
paradox is sufficient grounds for saying we should abandon it and turn our
attention back to real work (or limericks).

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: XML and Complex Systems (was Re: Re: An Architecture for Limericks)
• Next by Date: RE: Problem passing parameter to XSL thru JSP
• Previous by thread: Push and Pull?
• Next by thread: RE: Xml is _not_ self describing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread