• To: "Sam Hunting" <shunting@e...>
• Subject: Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
• From: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@c...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:10:48 -0800
• Cc: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0212191255280.25447-100000@w...>

> > However, if there is another person "X" who
> > uses tomorrow different syntax to express same meaning
> > or same syntax to express different meaning, etc...
> > (i.e. not being conservative)
> > than the best think I can do is to ignore his/her information at all.
> > 
> > This is actually a topic map authoring in a nut shell. :-))
> > Indeed, you can use RM4TM to "udermap"
> > (is it a good neologism ?) any markup.
> 
> Nikita, is it a typo for "undermap" or possibly "ubermap" ;-) Not sure I
> see what you mean here. Can you give a use case?
> 
> 
Thanks, Sam!
Yep it was supposed to be "undermap". :-(
However, it might be not that good idea after all,
as I just discovered an unwanted connotation here.
I meant "creating underlying map" not "insufficient mapping".

--Nikita.

Nikita Ogievetsky, nogievet@c...;
Cogitech Inc.        http://www.cogx.com   
Topic Maps Tutorials and Consulting. 
phone:  1 (917) 406 - 8734      

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
    • From: Sam Hunting <shunting@e...>

• References:
  • Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
    • From: Sam Hunting <shunting@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Internal entities removed from XML?
• Next by Date: Re: Internal entities removed from XML?
• Previous by thread: Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
• Next by thread: Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread