[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: "W. E. Perry" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:08:44 -0400
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.
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.
There is / one art || John Cowan <email@example.com>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein