• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:06:42 -0500
• In-reply-to: <1011733313.1480.120.camel@l...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <20020122125723.A10451@d...> <3C4DC265.F46EE894@p...> <1011733313.1480.120.camel@l...>

On Tuesday 22 January 2002 04:01 pm, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> I don't think we've begun to address the possibilities of XML's
> relatively easy 'lexical' level, so I'll leave semantics to the rest
> of you brave warriors.

Hmm. I've been feeling kind of like we threw the baby out with the 
bathwater recently... XML was originally supposed to offer better 
text/hypertext features to the WWW, but we seem to have missed that 
point...

• References:
  • Being "precise" vs being "human"
    • From: "Clark C . Evans" <cce@c...>
  • Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RE: PerlSAX_on_Win95
• Next by Date: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Previous by thread: Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"
• Next by thread: Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread