Subject: Re: Alternative *ML syntaxes From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 19 Nov 2002 02:49:14 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Christopher Browne | I think you missed the ambiguity I was pointing out. Give me some goddamn credit, already! This SGML shit is braindamaged enough as it is. People who should be smart enough not to create idiotic problems because they look at things without context, actually still seem to think that they can make do without context information. WHY? Show me an actual case where you fail to grasp the obvious solution, and I will help you. Inventing a moronic "general" solution for a problem that exists only if it has that "general" solution is just plain stupid. I actually believe that people naturally avoid the ambiguity, and this is not some retarded 90%-solution belief, it is based on years of actual experience with SGML application design. The reason is that for a number of /actual/ applications, not some half problemizing, half masturbatory "academic" exercise, naming an attribute and an element the same will in fact create problems. A problem does not need a solution unless it actually happens in real life. Just because some two-bit hacker cannot keep track of context while processing text files does /not/ mean that there is a problem. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.