• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: contractual madmess (was Re: The privilege of XML)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 20:18:12 -0500
• In-reply-to: <000701c29f1c$35b7bdd0$0207a8c0@karl>
• References: <r01050400-1022-9605A62A0B0811D793140003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

At 07:45 PM 12/8/2002 -0500, Karl Waclawek wrote:
> > 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.

Right - we're not there yet.

(Even if we were, English is hardly the language I'd recommend, as it makes 
even well-trained humans confused on a regular basis.  All these countries 
and even regions separated by a common language.  Pidgin is probably 
better, though it has variations as well.)

> > 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.

Right.

• References:
  • Re: contractual madmess (was Re: The privilege of XML)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: contractual madmess (was Re: The privilege of XML)
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: contractual madmess (was Re: The privilege of XML)
• Next by Date: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Previous by thread: Re: contractual madmess (was Re: The privilege of XML)
• Next by thread: Re: The privilege of XML parsing - Data types, binary XML and XMLpipelines (LONG)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread