Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Richard Tobin on 23 Feb 2010 13:00 In article <1jedku0.1fhatnzufnxt3N%usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk>, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >XML and HTML are both subsets of SGML. That's technically true, but not a very enlightening way to put it, because they are quite different kinds of subsets. It's like saying that ASCII documents and novels are both subsets of UTF-8 documents. XML is a simplified version of SGML. HTML is an application of SGML's syntax to a specific domain - hypertext documents. Similarly XHTML is an application of XML's syntax to the same domain. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Rowland McDonnell on 23 Feb 2010 13:10 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > >XML is meant to be machine-read and that's all it's meant for, surely? > > Absolutely not. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-origin-goals Right, let's see what it says there. "A software module called an XML processor is used to read XML documents and provide access to their content and structure." I.e., the idea is that this stuff's supposed to be `for the machinery to use' and the idea is that to access the content and structure of XML files, one is expected to use software to interpret the contents of 'em. Right so far, am I? "It shall be easy to write programs which process XML documents." So: `machine-easy' is required. "XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably clear." So: `_possible_ for humans to cope', is suggested. I rather think my point's proven by the link you supplied. > Would you say the same about HTML? <puzzled> HTML is meant to be machine-read just as much as XML, I thought. One of the first Web tools Tim B-L wrote was a graphical HTML editor so he didn't have to hand-code it all. > Aside: XML, like SGML, was conceived of as a markup language; that is > as stuff that's added to a plain text document to indicate titles, > paragraphs and so on. Well, yes - but in a fashion intended to be machine-friendly, not human-friendly. TeX is an example of a mark-up language intended to be author-friendly and it is, for particular values of `author' and `friendly' (one must match TeX dialect to author; Knuth uses Plain TeX. Normal humans run screaming from Plain TeX and prefer LaTeX. Or ConTeXt. Or I don't know what.) But as anyone who's used any dialect of TeX for more than trivial purposes soon finds out, it's very much a `write only' language. Figuring out TeX code is bloody hard for those who aren't already highly clued up. (hence the integration of source code and documention with current LaTeX - you've always got *SOME* documenation for the code, even if you can't figure it out, quite) > As such it's entirely reasonable to create XML > files by hand, and read them without any computer processing. But in general, looking at XML files that exist in the world, most of them are machine-generated and machine-read and never seen by human eyes. And if a random selection of human eyes did see them, the corresponding human brains would mostly respond with the equivalent of `Huh?' > Of > course, from the start it was seen that it could also be used as a > format for arbitrary structured data, Which is what I thought. > but even for that one of its > advantages is that it is still, if used carefully, human-authorable > and readable. Aye indeed. But as used in reality, mostly they're not /practically/ readable by anyone but a stone cold expert. N.B. That's `mostly' and `practically' and so on.... Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Ben Shimmin on 23 Feb 2010 13:11 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>: > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: [...] >> (Obviously I wouldn't enter into a contract with you >> for various very obvious reasons, but that's neither here nor there.) > > Quite - not that the reasons are anything other than confidential and > secret to you rather than obvious. Oh, sorry, I thought it was very obvious -- the reason I wouldn't enter into a contract with you (one where I do something for you and you give me money) is because you're a lunatic, and I make a point of not doing business with lunatics. The point of vendor lock-in is that you are locked into one vendor. You aren't here. You have the original files and an XML index, and you are free to offer those to anyone you like who is capable of working with them (which is many people, because XML is understood by lots of people, some of whom might not even charge you money, if you asked nicely). Finis. b. -- <bas(a)bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `It is like Swinburne sat down on his soul's darkest night and designed an organized sport.' -- David Foster Wallace, _Infinite Jest_, on American football
From: Richard Tobin on 23 Feb 2010 13:13 In article <1jedhjw.6rm0lqbh0gkxN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >So `advanced' JPEG2000 files are to my mind better described as >`extended' JPEG2000 files - extended to carry more than just an image >per file,. Yes, but the extensions include lots of other things than that, such as variants on the encoding suitable for particular kinds of data. (I can't access the standard from here, but I could get a list tomorrow.) So it's not clear to me that any arbitrary JPEG 2000 file you get might not require support for one of these extensions. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Rowland McDonnell on 23 Feb 2010 13:17
Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>: > > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > > [...] > > >> (Obviously I wouldn't enter into a contract with you > >> for various very obvious reasons, but that's neither here nor there.) > > > > Quite - not that the reasons are anything other than confidential and > > secret to you rather than obvious. > > Oh, sorry, I thought it was very obvious -- the reason I wouldn't > enter into a contract with you (one where I do something for you and > you give me money) is because you're a lunatic, and I make a point of > not doing business with lunatics. [snip] Well, you're absolutely and 100% completely wrong about that - arrogant, insulting, and pig-ignorant about it too. I'm not a lunatic. That term might just about be valid when applied to someone with what the shrinks abusively and inaccurately refer to as `psychosis' or `schizophrenia' and so on. I do have mental health problems: problems with anxiety and depression, which kind of define me as `not a lunatic as such, y'know'. It is my choice you'd never contract with me for anything. The reason you'd not engage in a contract of any sort with me is that you'd break the contract. I'm not the sort of idiot to engage in a contract with someone who's sure to welch on the deal. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |