On May 28, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On May 28, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> On May 28, 2009, at 3:17 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> On May 28, 2009, at 12:52 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> HTML application = {HTML interpreter, HTML generator} >>> >>> Please see my post on this thread for why the term "HTML >>> interpreter" is inaccurate and grating. >> >> I saw it. I suggest you do a little more research on the term, >> because Larry is about thirty years ahead of you on that. >> See Interlisp. > > First of all, this is an argument from authority. > > Second, if you are trying to make some connection, HTML > implementations don't work at all the way Interlisp did, and are > even more certainly not required to per spec. > > Third, if Larry feels there is a resemblance between I meant to say: Third, if Larry feels there is a resemblance between his implementation work on Interlisp and the general category of all applications that consume HTML, he can say so. But I don't think that is at all what he meant. Regards, MaciejReceived on Friday, 29 May 2009 00:05:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT