W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > October 2003

Re: otiose vs odious

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:02:49 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031011140034.02650640@127.0.0.1>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-sw-meaning@w3.org

Oops, sorry.

As scribe I completely messed that one.  "otiose" is not a word I've come 
across before.  (I did think "odious" seemed an odd choice of word in the 
conversation, but didn't have bandwidth to stop and question.)

#g
--

At 13:31 10/10/03 -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:


>Just to be clear, since I'm afraid some people didn't catch the
>correction, Bijan was calling Tim's spec-stack argument [1] "otiose"
>(pointless, superfluous, wasted) [2] not "odious" (abominable,
>detestable, execrable) [3].
>
>     -- sandro
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Stack
>[2] http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn1.7.1?stage=1&word=otiose
>[3] http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn1.7.1?stage=1&word=odious

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Saturday, 11 October 2003 09:12:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:15 GMT