Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce wi
 Len Bullard wrote: > Actually, the potential for infinite signfieds given a sign > never seems to occur in practice. Semioticians puzzled > over that one awhile and discovered that communities of > interpretation with preferred readings always emerge to > limit that infinity. signfied+ or signified* is just > a notation for a code picklist. There's room for lots of practice before the infinity problem takes root. English lets you say damn near anything using any grammar you please, and pretty rough speling as wel. As wide-open as English is, it ain't so tolerant - most readers ain't tolerant - of Chinese characters (or other non-Latin forms except in parens with a translation) appearing in the middle of English sentences. Logos and currency signs are occasional exceptions. We can have all kinds of weird spellings, mispronunciation is a common fact of life, but there's a core set of signifiers for the written language that isn't easily messed with. In reading English, we expect a flow of these characters which appear according to roughly predictable patterns (where are John's trigrams?). Signifier sets are rarely infinite in practices, though that still leaves plenty of room for nuance, ambiguity, and necessary chaos. URIs and all their capabilities strike me as a misguided effort to reach for the infinite by providing too many possibilities on the back of signifiers with commonly-understood (location-based)) constraints. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
