English Gets New Markup

[Christopher J. Henrich]

Postal workers here are unionized, and I don't think that
trying to be struck by lightning is a permitted "on the
job" activity. That said, if a postman did attempt it, I'm
sure their union shop steward could justify it ;-)

I don't think so. A postman struck by lightning would surely become
ionized.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Dylan Parry wrote:

Nah, it's just that some of the AWW regs are expanding their
personal space ;-)

No, it's about the parody being specifically about markup, not
about webmastering.

 

[Els]

No, it's about the parody being specifically about markup, not
about webmastering.

Ah right, yup, makes sense
But what would happen if we take all the other parodies not
about webmastering out of aww too? :S

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Ah right, yup, makes sense
But what would happen if we take all the other parodies not
about webmastering out of aww too? :S

That's not something I'm worried about.

 

[cefm]

I'm still working on New Math.

IMO if it is word.one that is being discribed like the above it should be
"<silly/>bunt" to save typing.time.

And using the period <really>messes up</really> the grammer checkers.

 

[cefm]

What do you think of strike.lightning(postman)? Not sure if I'm happy
with
it...

The postman was struck.lightning.

or

He.postman was struck.lightning.

I belive the <> words have to be an adjective a.k.a. "Describing word" in
this case there is not one. Where the word1.word2 where word one is the
word, and word to as tells what is was (car.Buick, climbed.tree).

This is what I get of it any ways.

"The worlds is not going to end tomarrow then again nobody tells me
anything."

 

[cefm]

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2004/08/english_2.html

Isn't is interesting that the above link is the only place on the Internet
the mentions this at all?

And from the article:

London, England - At a recent press conference, the English Language
Standards Commission (ELSC) unveiled plans for a new specification of the
English language, designed to make ambiguity less prevalent.

Try typing "English Language Standards Commission" in quote in google. Or
click here -->
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q="English+Language+Standards+Commission"&meta=

And the only result is the article if this group was important they would
have more than one article about them, or at least a website of there own.

this link comes up later on
http://www.english20.co.uk/specs/lang-def#verb

And the bottom of the artical takes the cake
Copyright 1999-2004 by BBspot LLC
BBspot is a satirical news and comedy source and meant to be funny. If you
are easily offended, gullible or don't have a sense of humor we suggest you
go elsewhere.

I belived this for 4 hours am I the only gulable person?

 

[tm]

this link comes up later on
http://www.english20.co.uk/specs/lang-def#verb

And the bottom of the artical takes the cake
Copyright 1999-2004 by BBspot LLC
BBspot is a satirical news and comedy source and meant to be funny. If you
are easily offended, gullible or don't have a sense of humor we suggest you
go elsewhere.

I belived this for 4 hours am I the only gulable person?

Did you know that the word 'gullible' is pronounce 'goo-lible'? Look
it up.

 

[Shailesh Humbad]

English 2.0

"Take, for example, the purple people eater. Is it a purple thing that
eats people, or a thing that eats purple people? In English 2.0, the
same idea would be expressed as <purple>eater.people</purple> and any
fool can plainly see that this is a purple thing that eats people...."

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2004/08/english_2.html

<obvious>any fool can plainly see there is more than one way</obvious>

<purple people="eater" />
<eater color="purple"><people /></eater>
<purple><people><eater /></people></purple>

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Isn't is interesting that the above link is the only place on the Internet
the mentions this at all?

Not particularly. Were you thinking that every humorous article on the
web had to be duplicated several times elsewhere?

And from the article:

London, England - At a recent press conference, the English Language
Standards Commission (ELSC) unveiled plans for a new specification of the
English language, designed to make ambiguity less prevalent.

Try typing "English Language Standards Commission" in quote in google. Or
click here -->
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q="English+Language+Standards+Commission"&meta=

And the only result is the article if this group was important they would
have more than one article about them, or at least a website of there own.

this link comes up later on
http://www.english20.co.uk/specs/lang-def#verb

And the bottom of the artical takes the cake
Copyright 1999-2004 by BBspot LLC
BBspot is a satirical news and comedy source and meant to be funny. If you
No....reeeealy?

are easily offended, gullible or don't have a sense of humor we suggest you
go elsewhere.

I don't fit those categories.

I belived this for 4 hours am I the only gulable person?

I don't know.

 

[Mark Parnell]

And using the period <really>messes up</really> the grammer checkers.

Only the ones that aren't English 2.0 compliant.

 

[Sam Hughes]

No, man.Sam. It is similar to language.Delphi (and other
languages.Pascal).

No no no. ~Flips out.~

If you do it that way, English 2.0 actually _removes_ features and
introduces vagueness. But that's a good thing, because now we get to
invent English 2.1!