Local Vs Global Vocabularies ( Was RE: [xml-dev] When Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam Filters Spam)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Possibly but I don't think so.  I get a message from 
that address about twice a week.  Because of the title, 
this mail will get one too.  It just doesn't appreciate 
Monty Python. :-)

"Spam Spam Spam Spam"

Anywho... better topic.  When designing vocabularies for 
very large communities, how do youse guys/y'all/anyone 
approach the dilemma of scale vs localization?  In reading 
a currently proposed language, we find that the approach 
taken was to review some n number of examples and boil 
that down to some n number of productions.  It seems 
sensible enough until one actually tries to implement 
that for local sites and discovers how much customization 
one puts back to deal with the fact that boiling it 
down proved to be locally lossy even if globally complete.

Of course, XSLT cures all ills, but ....

len


From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]

On Feb 20, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> Automation just ain't smart enough.  Note reason.

Or people ain't smart enough to install decent spam filters, or virus 
scanners that don't spam the random addresses in an infected machines 
address book that are forged in outgoing spam.  The state of the 
automation art is well beyond this.  [I'm still infatuated with 
SpamBayes after a year]

For all we know, this was generated by one of those spam filters 
advertised by spamming :-)