Received: from webgate.proteosys.de (mail.proteosys-ag.com [62.225.9.49]) by lucy.proteosys (8.11.0/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id f1F9vmH12483 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:48 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1F9vld09975 . for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:47 +0100 Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1F9vkM13763 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:46 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09735.C032F600" Received: from mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.56]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14230 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1F9vjM13759 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:45 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.8EFC0D40@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:31 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488540 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:35 +0100 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (mail.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.234]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA07624 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA31724 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:15 +0100 Received: from angel.algonet.se (angel.algonet.se [194.213.74.112]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id f1F9vGx25684 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:17 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 28988 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2001 10:57:14 +0100 Received: from delenn.tninet.se (HELO algonet.se) (195.100.94.104) by angel.algonet.se with SMTP; 15 Feb 2001 10:57:14 +0100 Received: from [195.100.226.155] (du155-226.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se [195.100.226.155]) by delenn.tninet.se (BLUETAIL Mail Robustifier 2.2.1) with ESMTP id 422795.231033.982delenn-s0 ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:13 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20010214141849.A11744@ellpspace.math.ualberta.ca> References: ; from Hans Aberg on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 01:46:44PM -0700 <2.07b5.RCBL.G8RKLA@cherepan.mccme.ru> Return-Path: X-Sender: haberg@pop.matematik.su.se Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Why markup? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:49:24 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Hans Aberg" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3933 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09735.C032F600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 14:18 -0700 2001/02/14, Michal Jaegermann wrote: >> The answer is as always: If you can parse it without markup, then it = is >> possible to parse it, right? If you, or other humans, cannot parse it = that >> way without markup, then don't expect the computer do it for you. :-) > >The net is chokfull of people failing to parse jokes. Otherwise ":-)" >would not have been invented. Why do you expect a computer to perform >infallingly such task and when? Who has said that I expect a computer to infallibly understand what = humans understand (apart from you)? -- After all, a computer is based on logic that aims at eliminating QM (quantum mechanical) effects, whereas the = human brain probably take full advantage of such QM effects. However, if you want a computer to be able to parse a joke or something, clearly the information needed to parse the joke needs to be made = available somehow, if not by markup, by some contextual information somehow, which = is how humans often solves it. (BTW, ":-)" is not the indication of a joke, but means "take it with a smile" or "please, do not become offended of what I say". :-)) >More seriously the answer to your question above is "No, I cannot in >general parse everything without some markup". At least not specific >pieces of a text without a context; and not only whithout a context of >the whole message but even if a social context of that specific >communication is missing. This is what I am saying, the information has to be provided somehow, = but not necessarily by markup on the particular words and symbols, if = parsing is better. >p.s. I would post that to the list if not some technical problems >with mail addresses right now. I made a redirect to the list. Hans Aberg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09735.C032F600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Why markup?

At 14:18 -0700 2001/02/14, Michal Jaegermann = wrote:
>> The answer is as always: If you can parse it = without markup, then it is
>> possible to parse it, right? If you, or = other humans, cannot parse it that
>> way without markup, then don't expect the = computer do it for you. :-)
>
>The net is chokfull of people failing to parse = jokes.  Otherwise ":-)"
>would not have been invented.  Why do you = expect a computer to perform
>infallingly such task and when?

Who has said that I expect a computer to infallibly = understand what humans
understand (apart from you)? -- After all, a computer = is based on logic
that aims at eliminating QM (quantum mechanical) = effects, whereas the human
brain probably take full advantage of such QM = effects.

However, if you want a computer to be able to parse a = joke or something,
clearly the information needed to parse the joke = needs to be made available
somehow, if not by markup, by some contextual = information somehow, which is
how humans often solves it.

(BTW, ":-)" is not the indication of a joke, = but means "take it with a
smile" or "please, do not become offended = of what I say". :-))

>More seriously the answer to your question above = is "No, I cannot in
>general parse everything without some = markup".  At least not specific
>pieces of a text without a context; and not only = whithout a context of
>the whole message but even if a social context of = that specific
>communication is missing.

This is what I am saying, the information has to be = provided somehow, but
not necessarily by markup on the particular words and = symbols, if parsing
is better.

>p.s. I would post that to the list if not some = technical problems
>with mail addresses right now.

I made a redirect to the list.

  Hans Aberg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09735.C032F600--