Am 01.12.2011 um 09:49 schrieb Bowerbird@aol.com:
keith said:
I would not call BB's idea or concepts BS.
so, is that what jim is saying now? that's a laugh. see if you can figure out exactly what he means...
They have their merit as you well say, below.
please please please do not take jim's word for it! i disclaim him, loudly, as _any_ sort of a reference. Then you disclaim that your idea do have merit! ;-))
I agree doing references is a big pain. The problem is that there is no sure way to get it right. Some can be done semi-automatically. Yet, most will have to been corrected.
i'm not sure what you're talking about here...
but i'm pretty sure that if i did, i would disagree. :+)
Talking, about discussing things hypothetically.
but it's useless to talk about these things "abstractly". you have to work with real texts, so you can _assess_ the accuracy of algorithms, using objective measures.
I will forgive you here, as I believe you do not have a formal education in Computer Science.
because "opinions" don't mean jack, or hold any water.
write code, or go home. that's what it boils down to...
write code, or go home.
I am home and whether you believe me or not I think code! 99% of the time my code works out of the box. An important paradigm in CS is think first, code later.
BB is trying to develop a minimal mark-up set.
not really. my mark-up can be as extensive as needed. anything your angle-brackets can do, so can my _zen_. all i have to do is devise the methodology to perform it.
So, extensive light-mark-up is NOT heavy mark-up. then? just, because you started out with small feature set? Then using XML is light-mark-up then? Or those features you have proposed are not a minimal ! Can be is hypothetical! C'mon, you know better than play games with me! regards Keith.