[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:49:57 -0800
• Cc: "Clark C . Evans" <cce@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <20020122125723.A10451@d...> <1011725969.1480.115.camel@l...>

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> My answer to the whole mess is simple: there ain't any meaning, just
> labels and structures.  Anything else is a bonus or a nightmare,
> depending.

If you see labels and structures where there is only "really" a string
of Unicode characters then I think you've extracted some meaning.
Semantic problems always seem insoluble because after we solve them
(e.g. figuring out how to say that an element is an integer), we don't
consider that a semantic problem any more.

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by Date: This spate of unsub messages
• Previous by thread: Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"
• Next by thread: Re: Being "precise" vs being "human"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread