On 10 Jan 2012, at 16:20, Syd Bauman wrote:
> Well, that may be OK for you, but I think it is bad advice in the
> general case. @rend is thankfully not over specified, so I have a
> mechanism to describe those renditional features of my documents that
> are important to me in a manner that I can process
The keyword there is "I". Yes, the @rend lets you leave notes to yourself
as you encode, about what you see, using whatever shorthand suits you.
Which is all great, and fine. The semi-formalism of it, however, gives me
(a computer) the _impression_
that I can read your short-hand too - and, in reality, I can't. That bothers me.
> But as you start an encoding project, you don't even yet know what
> features are important.
ah now there I think we may differ. If I do an encoding project, I'm going
to decide up front what I am doing it for, and what I want to record. I can't
buy the "describe everything just in case, I am a neutral observer" philosophy.
Then again, I am not human :-}
Head of Information and Support Group
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente