Nic Ferrier writes, citing Sean Palmer: > >It's just unbelievably complex. What you aare all saying is > >that there is no system as clever as a human: if there was, > >we could process it. Not that all humans are equally clever, but doesn't their existence suggest the existence of "systems" that clever. > No. That's not the point really. The point is that even humans can't > parse languages like English with any reliability. Witness my last sentence above. > We *think* we know what we and others mean *most* of the time... but > we often make mistakes. That's why politicians can exist. . . . > Teaching non-ambiguous English is a LOT harder than teaching > non-ambiguous XML. Indeed. A small amount of markup can clarify greatly. Systems can be designed that enrich it to the point of creating bloated-for-public-web-client xml. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Is this "English"?) What sometimes happens is that compulsive authors equipped with a powerful and succinct markup tend to over-elaborate, making their markup source look overly complex to others. My first awareness of such markup happened many years ago when I was taught always to leave two spaces (or a newline) after sentence-ending punctuation. -- BillReceived on Friday, 10 November 2000 10:28:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:46 GMT