Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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@r...> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
|
