- From: Brian Sexton <discussion-w3c@ididnotoptin.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:15:59 -0700
- To: "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: "W3C Style List" <www-style@w3.org>
> Robin Berjon wrote: > . . . > *processes* XML until it finds it not to be well-formed. I don't see how > it could guess that it's in error before parsing it to that error. The existence of an error and the detection of that error are different things. > . . . > It is simple to the point that you can immediately reduce it to A != > non-A, which is a tautology. I don't see how that advances the argument > though. > > The simple fact is: > . . . I have not seen anyone arguing against incremental rendering. You seem to have been responding to an argument that was never made and thus, cannot be advanced except in the introductory sense. > There are many ways of being rude; I was merely responding to your > assumption that you know and understand everything, and that tautologies > need be explained to others. You just admitted disputing assumptions and claims that were never made by claiming to have responded to my supposed assumptions that I know and understand everything and that tautologies need to be explained to others. Of course, I never made any of those assumptions nor any of those claim. Now that you mention it, though, is a tautology still a tautology when someone repeatedly argues not only against, but beyond it? I am not a very accomplished philosopher or logician, so I do not know, but while you are pondering that, you might want to look up the straw man fallacy.
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:17:42 UTC