- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 14:01:16 +0200
- To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 12:52:26PM +0100, James Graham wrote: > > But I'd love to see anyone write a serious dictionary by simply > > and mechanically taking down whatever people say and then suggest > > everyone else should use it to learn to communicate ... > > "The aim of the OED is to provide a record of how the English language > is and has been used in writing and in speech. Whether a word is new or > long obsolete, its meaning can only be determined by looking at examples > of it in use. > > The first step in creating or revising an entry is therefore to collect > evidence of words and phrases in use from all over the English-speaking > world." [1] Indeed. See my use of the word "mechanically" above. This is exactly why I said to add a taxonomy element to HTML 5 - for authors clearly want it. But the OED, as I believe you would be hard pressed to deny, does not simply toss everything and anything they find into the dictionary without some rather careful consideration. Luckily. -- - Tina Holmboe
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 12:01:23 UTC