> It's impressive how people take something out of context and republish > it and argue against it.
It's fun! ;o) > But is also impressive how people did not comment my example > using this > same list as an object to study. Probably is because Information > Structure and related benefits is only good for others not > ourselves :) What was the example? Was it the formatting of replies to the list? Both of your examples were examples of structured content...one just had a lot more (and redundant) meta information...which, of course, is uneeded in the context of an informal email discussion. > First of all Information Structure due to computer needs a sequential > reasoning process that is hardly compatible with creative > thought. Creative is not the same as 'not structured'. Structure can coexist with creativity just fine. > I can > go to some extent to organize my writing enough for readers to > understand it, That's as far as you have to go. What structure you give your readers is enough for the machine. Other than meta information you may want to include (which is outside of this particular debate) the machine really needs to know now more than the reader. What's the title of the article? Who wrote it? When? Where are the paragraphs? The only difference is that a human may be able to discern the title of an article based on presentation, but the computer needs structure. Hence the separation argument (structure for the machine, presentation for the human). -Darrel -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
