You know, the only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it... I can resist everything but temptation ... Impenetrability!
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'
(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell you.)
'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir,' said Alice. 'Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?'
'Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. 'I can explain all the poems that ever were invented — and a good many that haven't been invented just yet.'
On 4/9/13 5:09 PM, Fraser Goffin wrote:Did I say that validation was the heart of the problem? Not exactly. I said that schemas cause more harm than benefit. I attacked the use of schemas for agreement, and pointed out the perpetual temptation they offer to build brittle schema-centered applications. Validation is one small piece of that much larger puzzle, and not an especially useful piece.
That qualifies as a neat reversal of polarity.
Not at all. I, and others never claimed that the primary use case for
XML schema is for validation.
I'm not sure what I think of John's polarity reversal, but I think I can grant that it is at least a slightly less toxic use case than many others. There's LD50, and there are non-lethal toxic effects, many of them cumulative and unnoticed.Thanks for the condescension - it is indeed useful fuel for getting the paper written.
> Perhaps you just assumed that along with
> a few other things. Take the time to listen and consider, you might
> just find out something that will help your Basilage talk go all the
> better.
Thanks,
--
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/
_______________________________________________________________________
XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php