• From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
• To: "'sterling'" <sstouden@t...>
• Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:13:27 -0500

I mean there are no simple tools for very complicated tasks that work very
well without enormous tedium.  A compass and t-square can certainly be used
to design a cathedral, but building it takes lots of hands, chisels,
hammers, ropes, scaffolding and practice.

Based on what you wrote below, I think we agree.

To take this discussion in a more productive direction, compare the
requirements for SGML and the requirements for XML.  Since SGML knowledge is
becoming increasingly arcane, you might want to ask for some help from
people like Rick Jeliffe, Ken Holmann, Steve Newcomb, Lynn Price and others
of the Council of Elders.

Or Google.

:-)

len


From: sterling [mailto:sstouden@t...] 
 
What exactly do you mean "... attempts at universality reflects the 
complexity of the task as much as the tool"?  

Tools should resolve complexity to functional utility, but without 
complexity there would be little chance to achieve universality. 
Differential equations and vectors are tools that handle the complexity 
of real world space, time and shape problems. Few understand the tools, 
fewer still understand the problem, and no one has a complete grasp of the 
whole, still it works. Reduce the complexity of the universe below its 
point of universality and you lose the ability for it to support its 
current dependents.  

The deficiency is "tools that make useful" the complex.

To restate the problem as a need:

A language comprehensive to all information.

• References:
  • RE: SGML complexity
    • From: sterling <sstouden@t...>