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

RE: Types (again)

• To: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: RE: Types (again)
• From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:01:23 -0700
• Cc: "Xml-Dev (E-mail)" <xml-dev@l...>

> But take care with that reality word.  It is in the sense 
> of multiple viewpoints in a complex adaptive system, almost 
> meaningless at scale because it is non-deterministic, and 
> internally, private and unprovable.

Yes, Reality is like Types.  My point is argue about he nature of Reality,
but to point out that there is something there that tends to get in the way
of my attempts at modeling it. Some models are better than others. Some
types are better than others. 

My perception is that types based on accepted mathematical axioms are more
viable (i.e., flexible, determinant, and useful) than those based on local
custom. Neither this necessarily right or wrong. But the former has shown a
resilience and adaptability to new experience, where as the latter tends to
need adjustments. I'll take the types that don't need tweaking over the ones
that do, but I accept there has to be a mapping from the former to the
latter, and that such mapping is nontrivial in many cases. But it's still
better than mapping locale to locale.

In other words, I'm insisting that axiomatic types are nonlocal. However,
axiomatic systems can be. Choose and axiomatic system that best suites your
experiences, not your custom.

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Previous by thread: RE: Types (again)
• Next by thread: Pushing SAX events out onto the Web?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread