Jim, et al. Thanks for the interest in our book and kind words about it. The message promoting e-mail services, that we asked be stopped, was in a response to Ken Holman's announcement about his new books. News about new publications on XSL, XPath, and XSLT are of course welcome on the list (especially from Ken). Promos for e-mail services unrelated to our list are not. My apologies for causing any undue confusion. Best regards.
Alan Kotok Editor, < E-Business*Standards*Today /> http://www.disa.org/dailywire/ Data Interchange Standards Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 703-518-4174 At 06:04 AM 12/15/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Alan, David, et. al. > >(alphabetical, perhaps not SO chronological, this list's monitor as an >object, herewith) > >I remark here, knowing I may be "observed" by the factions of this lists XML >newbies(, etc.); a sub-faction, perhaps, yet they being of their own profound >value to this list. > >Seeking only the real value of "everything" (that actually and truely has >"it"), I herewith acknowledge that some (of various skill and experience, as >of this moment, certainly (as we were and yet again will be on various >issues/advancements, all at sometime), some will very likely benefit the many >that they influence by their yet/soon-to-come/arriving acomplishments in and >of XML utilization/propogation). > >Therefore, I choose to add this comment to a complex issue that is of perhaps >even, in more than a few cases, of >maximal(sic:should_instantiate_comparative(_vs:_declarative?)) importance for >this list organization to continue to be of the rather grand role I have >deemed it to be, to have fostered such great accomplishment of such (as it >has, under such control, become; and ought remain) that, and if re-thought >to start from scratch and think to get this far w/such complexity, be tamed >by consistant application of "category theory". > >This list has obviously "grown up", wonderfully faster than many hoped (as >the pre-new-millenium years were of too-sparse participation, let alone >way!_have_become_of_value contributions. KUDOS!, the mentors AND the >contributors of that great value. > >Now, the matter at hand, having been alluded to above, I sense that the >"affirmation" of the AOL announcement of the "new" XML publications was of >value, tho quite limited in the context of the "bulk" of contributions (I >speak only of those of the "nature" described above, of course) was "likely" >truely "meant" as genuine and professional contribution. Yet, the "bulk" I >have mentioned above alludes, itself, to the now vital need of the "lists" >benefactors to require, as a whole/group, via the caliber of moderation it >has fortunately received, they being "professionals'", perhaps to the person, >.. "professional" submitions. It may now, which such non-linear growth of >enterprise-wide committment to embracing XML as an ultimate organizational >"underpinning", planet-wide (as a (human specie's) specific "realisation"; >the WHY& HOW, when I alluded to "importance" of both XML itself, and thus, >this list, hereof). > >The respondant to AOL's post was "professionally" apprised, of course. Yet, >I remember what seemed a rather parallel/similar "set" of posting of the "way >back" that now reminds me of what was wisely said then, and seems to bear >repition (in principle) here. > >Pith: > > Consider the "group" and the bulk now processed(read: >"read"/time-taking_of_the_"precious"_genre) (as a vital need in this global >endeavor of all practicipants; soooo likely to have profound impact on each >and every one dwelling on said palnet (sic)), > > If(no ...)/When you become aware of the prospect of furthering the >success of the overall "project" of the membership, as a "whole" (which most >certainly requires the "coming up to speed of ALL, ... at every >level/sub-category of their own utility), OR especially! the newbies/futures, >realize this issue (handled, wisely as a "problem") has been solved over and >over, and simply, should have not just a "stock" response, but a list-wide >"experience" in just what "that" has been accepted to be. > > Which seems to be (sorta sort of): A "genuine" review of the material, >succinctly "labeled/tokenized" in the "Subject" field sould most likely, >IMHO, (at least), convert the post to one of significant value of >contribution of the appropriate SUBset of list participants. > >Further, not only those who "mentor" a "list" activity, but certainly those >who at any point in time "feel" "things" (of this list_processes) aren't >"just right", or just/right, even, especially, really should proceed to the >"Linux Documentation Project" web pages and commence a search on the term >"majordomo", which search should lead to the "How_To" of "email list" >activity and especially "monitor"ing. Therefrom, the realization that all >the above mentioned issues really have been "managed", almost as long(sic) as >there has been email access, should be noticed. > >Regards, > >Jim Cunningham > >P.S. > >Pardon the "wordiness" above, if that is how you percieve said content. > >It's not just a VERY "sensitive" matter, it VERY MUCH matters. > >P.P.S. > >That I haven't here been favored with a review of the manuscript of Alan and >David, however, does leave me feeling a "quandary" of this overall >submission. Yet I also feel the list members have been "denied" that >review, perhaps from the "professionalism" of commitment from them (the >authors just mentioned), in their (and so too, our favor, IMHO,) unique level >of contribution here, specifically. I really doubt their publisher's budget >for their publication could't/wouldn't jump at the opportunity to "sell" this >list's members, especially, the authors familiarity with the (list's) subject >matter, as established in their contribution to this list's goals, so showing >from the git/go. > >It quite appears to me that they deliver the goods to this list's management, >in the professional committment of keeping so quiet about what may be such a >complete and valuable (to, perhaps, a LARGE subset of list members, I >surmise) an achievement, for the "team" we do actually constitute via the >existence of this same list, IMHO. That being the case, their "doing their >duty" yet again, re: the AOL submission/responses, just leaves me more aware >of how much they really care and have given (despite occasional ONEROUS DUTY). > >But, perhaps I have, here, had more than enough impact on their professional >and personal "space" (WELL DONE, DUDES!!, especially your most well timed >"Q.E.D"s in the formation of the success of XML embodied in this list's >grown_huge" (sorta, pretty much) QUALITY membership participation). > >Too: Those who feel sure the "granularity" within XML stuff is going/gone >(way?) overboard: > >(Study ENGLISH maybe! Or aptly critique it's influence on "civilization". The >EU long ago mandated that all EU gov. level (read: federal) communication >MUST be published in the membership's home country's govt. official language, >AND ENGLISH simultaneously, in EACH member country, w/o exception; look it >up, I was there; strictly speaking, I just applauded their experienced wisdom >of "efficiency") > >Soon, perhaps, "we" may have achieved such (bulk!) granularity too(sic) then >provide the mandatory/required depth and breadth of "substance", as a >"language" (categorization theory achievement) of true "determinism" (read: >CLARITY; it's just becoming possible!, tho certainly not obvious or even >apparent to the new-to said theory). SUBsets of XML:OVERALL_INFLUENCE via >"proveably wise" application/implementation will handle (read:manage) >:wireless", "business", "network" etc. "protocols", (stack machine (of >course))proveably correctly, AND (ditto, the mach. ref.) proveably efficient. > Focus on the "SUB" portion of the word "subset", IMHO, WHEN "aptly >integrated" with (a soon to be "clarified" in the spirit of aformentioned >"theory", I so hope) the OMG. If you have trouble finding references to >"category theory", the majority of work is in "Physics", as it should be, >IMHO (it may be quite a "bite" to get your teeth into; you have been warned, >Also, I accentuate the concept of "provability"; principally via "stack_state >machine constructs and concepts; recursion, the quiz "item" so many settled >to let (not pass that one) pass. There's a LOT of hardware out ther, >compared to the "times" recursion was deempahsised in pre graduate studies. >And, yes, it's still the easiest way to screw up BIG!!!!, in "programming". >Yet, it is actually simple, in and of itself, despite that simplicity seeming >to cause so many instances of it being misapplied (just plain wrongly). > > >------ 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 ------ 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
