Re: [gutvol-d] a review of some digitization tools -- 007
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.
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. :+) 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. 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.
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. or hey, try ascii-doc, or restructured-text, if you prefer. they are light-markup systems that are hardly "minimal", and you'll learn that their methodology is already devised. of course, if anybody here really wanted to learn anything, you know, they would've already done it, several years ago. -bowerbird
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.
participants (2)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Keith J. Schultz