Lists Home |
Date Index |
Paul T wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Borden" <email@example.com>
> > I've read this message from beginning to end, but it just contains vague
> > whining without any substence. If you think "RDDL but not the current
> > is useful for some purpose, what specifically do you mean. I don't want
> > read rambling, rather a specific proposal. Certainly you must have
> > in mind. Try to be constructive rather than destructive. Please.
> The constructive thing as I see it is :
> 1. Read my 'summary' letter (with the RDDL subject )
> 2. Write me in private and provide me with the actual
> problem you're solving or planning to solve
> with the help of RDDL. By the 'actual problem'
> I mean some repetitive real-life task. Something
> real, like : "I run my homepage with RDDL". "I browse
> the Web with RDDL". E t.c. I'm sure that if I would
> try hard, I can explain you what tasks are 'real' and
> what are not. I just don't think we need to keep this
> process happening on this list.
What does what I am doing with RDDL have to do with what you are saying? You
started this discussion. To quote you:
"This wins with no question, I think. And I think
the buzzword should be not RDF, but RDDL
( not the current version, sorry ;-( ). "
So what is the future version? What are you talking about. You say you have
explained yourself but I still have no idea what you are talking about. You
have trouble explaining yourself in words, so explain yourself in another
way, code, a formula, you pick.
> I think that when questioning my abilities to write
> a (trivial) bunch of code ( that's the 'constructive'
> content of two of your letters ) - you overreact.
If it is trivial, then let's see it. I ask this only because I just can't
understand your text. Perhaps you are better at explaining yourself in code?
I am not questioning your ability to code, rather your ability to explain