Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
How about an upconversion spectrum like: noise --> human readable ---> machine readable Of course it does beg the question about what machine readable means - do machines read - what does it mean to say something is machine readable. There are both syntactical and semantic levels to a machine "reading". If you have both syntactical and semantics then it could be said to be "more readable". If the semantics are standards based, such as XPath expressions, then that is readable by more. In the example in this thread, the XPath has better known semantics than the XML example so my vote is that it is "more readable" It was not clear to me, however, whether this was in the scope of the definition upconversion. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Dave Pawson [mailto:davep@d...] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:16 AM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: Fwd: Word of the day: upconversion >> Recently I read an article [1] by Michael Kay and learned a fabulous word: >> >> upconversion >> >> The word originates in the broadcasting industry, where it is used to mean the conversion of a low resolution image to an equivalent high resolution image. >> >> In the XML world, I believe Omnimark first coined it for their tools output? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk _______________________________________________________________________ XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS to support XML implementation and development. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l... subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l... List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
