• To: "Chris Burdess" <d09@h...>,"Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Subject: RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• From: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:12:53 -0600
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcY5Y0uX46glZMh8T6eChlW1YnRNNgAAX6DQ
• Thread-topic: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing

Sure.  The first and second order implicatures (because 
that's better than saying, managing paranoia).   See 
Grice's Maxims for some loose best practices.

Again: is it the case that the http verbs are deliberate 
in making it possible to schlep with the fewest implications 
based on the use of the network?  I think so and I think 
that is the substance of a TAG opinion.  It might have been 
with regards to deep linking and problems such as shortening 
a URI to see other resources.  The Brits made that illegal 
and the TAG indicated that such a law was nonsense given 
the architecture.  IOW, if the sys admin didn't lock it 
off, it's public by implication.

len


From: Chris Burdess [mailto:d09@h...]

Semantic disambiguation by context is only one aspect of pragmatics.  
There's also paralinguistics, such as "what are you communicating by  
sending this message above and beyond the content of the message?",  
"what are you communicating by not sending a message?" (insert  
interferometer analogy here), "what can I infer about your intent  
when you send this message?"

• Prev by Date: RE: Did Documents Win? No. Objects Just Couldn't GetTheir Act Together.
• Next by Date: RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• Previous by thread: RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• Next by thread: RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread