Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> karl@w... (Karl Waclawek) writes: > >Unfortunately not. > >Understanding a given piece of data from the context under > >which one comes into contact with it, is extremely difficult. > >You basically need human-like intelligence and a knowledge > >of the world. > > > >Once our computers have that, why would we need XML? > > For natural-language processing, certainly. Well, if we can process natural language, who cares about XML. Just scribble down a few notes in Pidgin-English and let the computer figure it out. > XML processing, however, is already pretty constrained. People don't > tend to send markup poetry as invoices (despite the occasional outbreaks > of haiku on this list), and I suspect that perhaps it's time to abandon > the delusion that the meaning of every byte must be predetermined for > there to be any hope of understanding between computers. And there isn't just *one* meaning. Anyway, I shouldn't really comment too much, I am not an XML aficionado despite my involvement with an OpenSource parser. So I often don't get the stuff between the lines, I guess. Karl
|
