• To: 'John Cowan' <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: Subtyping in XML
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:59:36 -0500
• Cc: aray@n..., xml-dev@l...

That must make rehosting the Egyptian information into new 
media quite challenging.

Why were the Chinese more prescient and competent?  
Media types?  Information types? Cultural emphasis? 
Dumb luck?

len

From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> 
> Oh well... I guess we'll put together a 
> tomb robbing party sooner or later.
> XML is YetAnotherNotation.  I wonder 
> how hieroglyph engravers kept it all 
> consistent.

They didn't, and it would be surprising if they had done so, what with
a three-thousand-year time depth and a vocabulary of thousands of signs.
Chinese is almost as old and has lots more signs, but is also more systematic
and has a more unified tradition.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Subtyping in XML
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Subtyping in XML
• Next by Date: Re: Shouldn't colon be reserved?
• Previous by thread: Re: Subtyping in XML
• Next by thread: Re: Subtyping in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread