Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hyper.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hyper!brust From: brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Canonical ? Message-ID: <222@hyper.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 11:19:57 EDT Article-I.D.: hyper.222 Posted: Wed Jul 3 11:19:57 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 02:04:01 EDT References: <2399@topaz.ARPA> Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn. Lines: 25 > From: jdecarlo@mitre.ARPA > > > Jay Johannes writes: > >Hold on just a second, here. I have been reading over the list and > >am wondering if everybody knows what "canonical" means? Webster > >gives definitions of orthodox and simplest form. > > My response is "hold on just a second yourself!" First of all, let > me cite my Random House dictionary definition of canonical: I'm sorry, I just can't hold back any longer. ** FLAME WARNING ** Trying to determine what a word means by looking it up in a Websters is almost as useful as trying to determine a a politician's honesty by looking at the Gallop Poll. ** FLAME OFF ** Random House is better. American Heritage is good. The Oxford English Dictionary is definitive. -- SKZB