Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 07:45 PM 12/8/2002 -0500, Karl Waclawek wrote:
> > 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.
Right - we're not there yet.
(Even if we were, English is hardly the language I'd recommend, as it makes
even well-trained humans confused on a regular basis. All these countries
and even regions separated by a common language. Pidgin is probably
better, though it has variations as well.)
> > 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.