Lists Home |
Date Index |
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Karl Waclawek) writes:
> >Unfortunately not.
> >Understanding a given piece of data from the context under
> >which one comes into contact with it, is extremely difficult.
> >You basically need human-like intelligence and a knowledge
> >of the world.
> >Once our computers have that, why would we need XML?
> For natural-language processing, certainly.
Well, if we can process natural language, who cares about XML.
Just scribble down a few notes in Pidgin-English and let the
computer figure it out.
> XML processing, however, is already pretty constrained. People don't
> tend to send markup poetry as invoices (despite the occasional outbreaks
> of haiku on this list), and I suspect that perhaps it's time to abandon
> the delusion that the meaning of every byte must be predetermined for
> there to be any hope of understanding between computers.
And there isn't just *one* meaning.
Anyway, I shouldn't really comment too much, I am not
an XML aficionado despite my involvement with an OpenSource parser.
So I often don't get the stuff between the lines, I guess.