[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Quite.
Too much double speak.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@comcast.net]
[Bullard, Claude L (Len]>
>
> That is the direction I thought they might be headed in with that,
> but without a reference, I wasn't sure. So it is an infoset. That
> is a bit vague and doesn't quite tell us why it is an expensive
> approach, or precisely how it determines a document's "meaning"
> except insofar as information items are grouped. In other words,
> we can use the infoset to describe it's meaning as a well-formed
> document (as document is defined therein), but not the meaning
> of the content. ...
Let's also remember that an http: url retrieves a "representation of a
resource". What then is the "document"? Is it the resource or the
particular instance of its representation? I presume that it is the
instance, in whatever MIME (or infoset) from it may have, but it would be
well to have this distinction spelled out.
|
