[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Names As Types

• To: 'Rick Jelliffe' <rjelliffe@a...>, XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Names As Types
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:57:36 -0500

Which means as the stack gets taller, the top turtle 
is break dancing to stay on top.

This is fun. Can anyone here describe the hypothetical 
most stable turtle stack keeping in mind that losing it in the 
philosophy of meaningfulness is not being a clean 
clear thinking turtle? The first turtle is the human 
who is the ultimate semantic processor - the authority - 
so it means what you say it means and if you can't 
communicate your meaning, you are a fuzzy turtle.

What is the ideal XML application language architecture? 
Is there such a thing?  Are we stuck in a world where 
all we can rely on is the syntax (the Perry Position)? 
Can one layer in the semantics cleanly and clearly 
in such a fashion that the techniques are sharable 
and the semantics are fully learnable or discoverable 
with emphasis on "learnable" because discovery 
infers one is uncertain whereas learning means one is 
just scheduled?

len


From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:rjelliffe@a...]


Bullard, Claude L (Len) said:
> So the bottom turtle is strictly syntax.  XML
> has no application semantics.  This we know.

My point is that the second turtle is missing!
This is creating difficulties for the others.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Names As Types
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@a...>
  • RE: Names As Types
    • From: Vladimir Gapeyev <vgapeyev@s...>
  • Re: Names As Types
    • From: "Nathan Young" <natyoung@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Generating implicit wrapper element
• Next by Date: Re: Generating implicit wrapper element
• Previous by thread: RE: Names As Types
• Next by thread: Re: Names As Types
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread