- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:03:42 -0500
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 08:44:34PM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote: > > True, but why is that bad? > > Because its not what the sender said. BTW - you introduced the value > judgement 'bad' into the discussion. Sorry, the intent of that sentence wasn't to question the "badness" (which I agree with), but instead just to ask the reason behind why it's bad. > > I believe it's because - as I > > said above - that the recipient would believe that the sender > > is trying to communicate the graph. > > I guess that your are free to believe (1st believe above) that... but I > don't think it would be a universally shared belief (2nd believe above). Sure. FWIW, my mental model which drives this belief is of two agents on either side of an HTTP connection that want to communicate. As an HTTP message is the only means they have for communication, it's important that the meaning of the communication, as determined by the sender, be pickled up into a message such that when it's received by the other agent, it can be unpickled and that original meaning reconstructed in its entirety. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 22:56:15 UTC