Re: definition Re: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again

Yes, one of the keys is that text is alphanummeric - that's what I am trying
to saywhen I mean it is characters. The bit about human language (sometimes
we have called these "natural languages") I think means languages that are
written in text. And then we start to get circular again.

If we explain "human language" as written languages are we getting any
closer? I am not sure.



On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo wrote:

  Hi Ian and all,

  I agree with Wendy in that:
  The basic premise of non-text content was described well by Charles:
  "Something that doesn't rely on writing to communicate its content.
  Normally, a picture, some sound, a movie, and so on."

  But I don't find very guessed right the suggestion of Ian for the meaning of
  "Text content":
  "Content that may be understood by people as human language when rendered
  visually, as speech, or as Braille."

  Neither the definition of  Non-text content:
  Content that, when rendered, does not convey meaning through human language.

  Because the image (a comic, a movie) also has a language that can be
  understood by people. And because a sound file, a video or an animation can
  transmit meaning through the human language.

  Maybe the difference rests in that the text is alphanumeric.

  But I don't dare to suggest a definition in English!!



Received on Friday, 3 August 2001 06:00:21 UTC