In a message dated 7/16/00 3:28:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Group,
>
> This is, I admit, a tiny point, but please try to use the language correc=
> tly. =
>
> The subject line "UNSPSC - whose in charge anyway?" makes no sense. This=
>
> title is trying to convey a question concerning the identity of the entit=
> y in
> charge, as in "who is in charge?". The correct contraction for this usag=
> e is
> "who's", as in "who's in charge anyway?". The word "whose" indicates
> possession, as in "whose grammar book is this", and doesn't work at all i=
> n the
> context of this subject line. =
>
>
> Thank you,
> G. Patrick Bryant
"whose(sic)" might have proferred the preferred propinquity of poingniant
pith; perhaps?
Colloquiallism doth conquer collectives covertly.
It's only email; in a forum; for'em?
We could close-couple the spell-checker/style-checker/add-time-infinit-eat-em
etc., but ... ... ... so.
Laugh a little :) (that's one).
Regards,
Jim Cunningham
P.S.
David's core recommendation is still way valid (no IMHO here, sorry).
Leaving the general case of specifying incorporation of such
"tables/formats/specs" from such other/outside "bodies" "unsolved" bc. we
have solved an instantiation of same would be a potential mega-hairball in
many possible or even likely futures. A little/at-least-some introspection
and perhaps conversation seems quite appropriate here. The "group" seems to
have "filled out" with early adopters, now substantially outnumbering raw
developers of the underlying original and vital issue of structured
management of structure. They may be getting darned tired of what they must
often see as gilding the lily. Yet to the "founders" it's simply uncompleted
work that is as important as that which has gone before. Those who are
compelled to break out and run with their own ball on their own field have
every right to meet their needs to do so, but are perhaps ill advised by
marketeers, financiers, pundits, etc. who drive the press of business so they
can chase it.
We seek (to enforce) logic and clarity of thought.
If on any issue you can only have one, choose. "When you come to a fork in
the road, take it".
It is not unlikely, the general solution was nailed down and "blended" with
the great body (of specs.) we now have to admire and lust (for profits) over.
If someone can contribute on the existence of such work already
accomplished, I hope they can find a moment to contribute to the groups
search for "clarity".
P.P.S.
G. Pat:
Here, we get more than enough lexical and syntactical analysis. But it's
what we do here, at least originally. Hope that which you have generously
contributed above on the English language can be available with the same
vigor anf thouroughness for the needs of the problems left to solve. Truely,
thanks.
Group:
Sounds like a volunteer?
Somebody recruit this guy today. Maybe he can find some time to ponder the
problem I tried to describe above, outsider tables-the general solution.
------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------
Homepage = http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
Unsubscribe = send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leave the subject and body of the message blank
Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To receive only one message per day (digest format)
send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
(leave the subject line blank)
digest xmledi-group your-email-address
To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm
