[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On 8/6/02 11:26 AM, "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:
> Bob Hutchison scripsit:
>
>> Yes, I understand that you are saying the text values are idiomatic. I'm
>> just pointing out that 75°15'00" N isn't the idiom, 75°15'00" N 43°05'00" W
>> is (maybe). So saying <lat>75°15'00" N</lat> is no more idiomatic than
>> <lat>75.25</lat>.
>
> Nonsense. If your idiom for time is 2:45 PM, then the idiom isn't 2.45 PM,
> but it's still better than 14.75 (hours after midnight). Claims of the
> form "Because B isn't exactly A, it's no better than Z" are facially bogus.
"facially bogus" means "bogus in a facile way"? Is that what you meant?
Wow.
But why did you say that? Unless you believe that "almost idiomatic" is
always and obviously better than "not idiomatic"? And thinking otherwise is
facile and bogus.
Hmmm, user is told "no problem, you get to write things the way you always
have, only remember not to use ':' but '.'. Oh, and over here, where you
want to write a co-ordinate, remember to write it this way... it'll be easy
to remember because it is so similar to what you do now. Oh and over
here..." I don't know if I'd be quite so quick to insist that something that
is familiar but not normal (idiomatic) is necessarily better than something
less familiar solely on the basis of its familiarity.
|
