[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
No problem. It corresponds moreorless with the
view that artha as "wealth" can mean worldly power,
money, etc. It is a means to multiply choices
for my particular interpretation and I confess,
that is a late interpretation. Semantic is a
buggy word in these parts, but I generally interpret
it as the formal or legal set of operations that
can be applied to data. So we aren't that far
apart.
For me, the infoset is a useful abstraction. It
only exists as a way of labeling. Still, it is
hard for me to figure out how to get interoperability
without some set of labels to name the bytes
corresponding to an element, attribute, and so on.
The DOM is an API. Being able to name the things
an implementation of an API operates on is useful.
However, the InfoSet as an Implementation is an
application, not XML. That is the point Simon
is driving home and I agree with. The rub is
as he points out, it doesn't need XML The Syntax
as anything other than just another serialization
format. I thought that was a major benefit of
the Infoset: that one could deal with Virtual XML
without actually using that syntax.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: W. E. Perry [mailto:wperry@fiduciary.com]
As a technical term of the Sanskrit grammarians, artha (sorry, Len) signifies
what is usually meant by 'semantics' in xml-dev discussions: a 'meaning'
expressing the 'purpose' or 'intent' of the author. Thus understood, artha
is the product of vivaksa, the impetus to utterance. The 'syntactic' school,
if I may anachronistically call them that, built a competing understanding
of language around the term sphota, literally a 'bursting' or
'blooming'--the instance manifestation.
|
