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

Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
• From: "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@n...>
• Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 07:48:13 -0500
• Organization: Novannet, LLC. Columbus, US-OH
• References: <032801c52058$628a0330$c970fea9@CMHNovannet> <200503041246.09177.david.lyon@c...> <4227F5C7.9010602@o...> <200503042235.05201.david.lyon@c...>

David, could you succinctly explain why this new "language" of yours is
supposedly better than XML syntax?  After all, isn't

    <ListserveCrank detachedFromReality="true" />

more succinct, efficient AND pleasing than

    <ListserveCrank>
            detachedFromReality?=True
    </ListserveCrank>

?

William J. Kammerer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lyon" <david.lyon@c...>
To: "Bob Foster" <bob@o...>
Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Friday, 04 March, 2005 10:35 PM
Subject: Re:  [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is
missing from the UCS ?


On Friday 04 March 2005 12:44 am, Bob Foster wrote:
> David Lyon wrote:
> > imo that's an ugly character, the  "¬" symbol. Even uglier than
> > my "Ya" text.... :-)
> >
> > Given the following:
> >
> >  a) <SomeChick>
> >       really_ugly?=True
> >     </SomeChick>
> >
> > or
> >
> >  a) <SomeChick>
> >       really_ugly?=¬
> >     </SomeChick>
>
> No, sorry. Yours is uglier.

You're just saying that to impress.... :-)

Come on Bob, don't be shy in expressing your feelings... you
can tell us how you really feel..... I won't be offended...

In any case, functionality in data representation is way more important
than cosmetics. Data representation is not about beauty or ugliness.

It's about being able to transport a particular set of data from one
place to another and with a high degree of accuracy, decode the
information and process it with as little complexity and ambiguity
as possible.

While it may not be beautiful, concise and efficient for transmission
of business information it is. And these are the truly important
criteria
for judging whether a markup style is useful or not.

Look at the first automobiles... or aeroplanes.. were they beautiful..?
No way... but somebody eventually put nice panels on them and
all worked out ok in the long run....

likewise with this.. maybe we just need time to give our eyes time
to adjust to the new form...

David


-- 
Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>

• References:
  • Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
    • From: "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@n...>
  • Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missingfrom the UCS ?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
• Next by Date: RE: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
• Previous by thread: RE: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
• Next by thread: Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread