- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:16:37 -0700
- To: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 1:49 PM -0400 2001/7/31, Joe Clark wrote: >By the way, it is unwise to continue to refer to human languages as >"natural" languages, no matter how well-understood that term is >among the cognoscenti. Why not call them human languages? Well, if you want to get picky, HTML and XML and SMIL and C++ and Perl and Visual Basic and Applesoft BASIC are all human languages too. As long as "natural language" is defined somewhere in a glossary, I think that our use of the term makes sense, as that is the technical term used by people in the field (e.g. NPL professionals), and the other folks who aren't familiar with this term really should learn it. Otherwise our document won't be taken seriously by the people working with natural/human languages. Wait. Does this argument seem eerily familiar to anyone else? --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network Tel +1 949-567-7006 ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 23:23:36 UTC