• To: "Bob Foster" <bob@o...>,"Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@i...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:16:57 -0700
• Thread-index: AcNhHu6anChjLdqETnmx4ZHEZonfpQAAD51w
• Thread-topic: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Foster [mailto:bob@o...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:26 PM
> To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is 
> XML Really Extensible?
> 
> 
> Why not leave meaning the province of humans, who sometimes 
> write programs to give an operational "meaning" to XML 
> documents? The meaning is not intrinsic to the document; only 
> the syntax is.

Agreed. XML is about syntax and nothing else. People who think otherwise
have been misled by the XML hype of yesteryear.

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Eat right, Exercise, Die anyway.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Next by Date: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Previous by thread: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Next by thread: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread