[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: different communities
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:35:41 -0500
At 05:11 PM 2/9/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Take this notion of local and global, and map that to my different
>encoding levels. I claim that data can have several encoding levels. I
>claim that at any level there is interpretation.
Of course there is intepretation. I just lack any interest in mapping it
to _your_ belief in 'data having several encoding levels', as if the data
is separate from what we do with it.
>Words do not have meaning, people give meaning to words.
>Can we agree on that?
That people give meaning to words, yes. That this contributes in any way
to your argument, no.
>Words, tags, characters. These are all just different symbol packages.
>Different interpretation levels.
>
>If we want to communicate we have to restrict interpretation (and thus
>define meaning).
And I'm afraid that's where the breakdown takes place. You seem to believe
(from prior messages) that meaning can be fixed in some useful way. I
disagree, and I'm not inclined to be convinced. Nor am I certain that
general arguments about the nature of meaning are appropriate to xml-dev.
>Apparently in the real world we are able to do this reasonably well. Good
>enough at least to get some things done consistently. The more we restrict
>interpretation, the more precise we can communicate.
But that restriction is performed on a case-by-case basis. I have very
different interpretations of the word 'router' when used on XML-Dev and
when used on a woodworking forum, for instance.
>Now my question to you was/is: at what level do you see a *critical* problem
>for the viability of general markup language?
>Apparently you did spot a problem, and this is very valuable feedback.
>But please identify the problem. What is the problem? Why is it critical?
>Then if we need to solve it, we need to restrict interpretation at some
>encoding level.
No, we need to let people develop their own systems for restricting
interpretation. This isn't something 'we' as a general community need to
do. I'd suggest that we stop trying to identify and solve problems
generically.
>There is always a price to pay, I'd like to know if it's worth paying.
Prices to pay, taxes to impose, sometimes worth paying, sometimes not.
If you want to continue this meta-discussion, I'd suggest we take it
offlist and let the developers get back to work.