Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

W. E. Perry wrote:


> Whatever the markup may say (and what it says is
> definitive), type does not inhere in the syntax or the 'data' conveyed by that
> syntax:  it inheres (or more correctly, is elaborated) in the processed outcome
> of that syntax. To achieve identical outcomes requires congruent processing, and
> that is the one thing markup-based information handling cannot assume.


<flame>
I asked you once before how any processor that receives messages whose
sender intended "counterparty" to be a counterparty, and "sprice" to
be a settlement price, and interpreted them in precisely the opposite
senses, could possibly count as a sensible (i.e. non-Byzantine) member
of the network.

What you are emitting is blatant This-Or-Nothingism: i.e., because not
every detail of the pragmatic interpretation of a message is constant
from node to node, nothing but the bare surface syntax is.  This is
another version of Humpty Dumpty's interpretation of "glory" as
"a nice knock-down argument", and is self-evidently absurd.
</flame>

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein