- From: <drewangel@adelphia.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 7:05:33 -0400
- To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org <public-webarch-comments@w3.org>
- CC: <drewangel@adelphia.net>,<w3c@drewangel.com>
Cyberspace itself should be considered analogous to the set of all sets. Sunday 2004'262.6405 September 19th= PASSED DEADLINE TO COMMENT <=2004 Sept16 This subject is too complex for a full response in the short period I had (saw the notice about 2 weeks ago), but the following contains my general thoughts, which are that Cyberspace should be considered as a practical model of the Universe, although, as with most models, its form is extremely different from the object modeled. My normal interests are more in the direction of the HTML standards, but I definitely do think the Internet addressing scheme is too small: it should allow for numerically distant catagorizations, that might be humanly descernable. Basically the system should be able to login every single human thought, every idea, every photo, every frame of every video. It is not inconceivable that some people will think that even every pixel of every frame, and every sample of every audio clip (i.e. ~50k samples per second) should be addressable through Cyberspace. That's a lot larger view than normally taken, but THE SYSTEM should have MORE THAN ENOUGH ROOM to grow in the forseeable future, and be able to handled as subsets, some of which will be compatible with the current system. The world's a big place: it is not going to get smaller. Cyberspace, itself, therefore, should perhaps be considered analogous to the set of all sets. USING FLOATING POINT URI ADDRESSING In particular, I think the address space should immediately be extended to a larger space "between the dots." It could be made allowed to be 6 or 8 digits without any gigantic other changes, as an interim fix. HOWEVER, if the dot (= decimal point ) is not the delimiter used, then floating point numbers can be used, basically solving all troubles with respect to address space size. That would allow machine limited infinitesimal expansions on the right side of integer addresses, and, enabling expansions on the left as well. The obvious hinderance is the use of decimal points. The clear choice is to choose a address delimiter and a new glyph without the conflicts of the DOT. A good choice might be binary value 00000100 = ascii code 04 (commonly represented as a diamond glyph). The expedient of the decimal point combined with fixed point interger values for internet addresses was determined even before CRT screens were common in computing. It is time to grow up. That there would be many unused addresses, as indeed of course there are now, is true, but in the future things like DNA samples and other testing results will be part of the general database, which means that numerous information items could refer to the identically same item,, and in this case, there could even be identically similar reports about the same identical sample, refering to potentially an identical source, or not, And that could all come from a single drop of spit or a single hair, of which there could be numerous similar items in, a single scientific study, or legal proceeding. The future must contain a virtually infinite URL/URI address space, perhaps on the order of 10^50 items, supposedly more than the number of atoms in the Observed Universe. But it is important, in my view, that the cyberspace model should be able to CONTAIN the universe, logically, even if it is never fully filled with actual atoms. The very idea of SPACE indicates distance between particles, and in any cyberspace there should be room for plenty of space between addresses. A real problem of viewpoint is that regardless of the large limited numbers of atoms, or even particles, that figure is a one dimensional parameter. It neglects the true nature of the universe, where all those particles change relatively every instant, and where the true measure is units of action. That make the number of particles simply into the basic unit measure of the action of the Universe. Thus when figures like ten^43rd power are take as markers for the most of something, the crucial element of the flow of time as a series of actions is neglected. Cyberspace, as a space, must, for the future, be seen more as a model of the universe than merely a static collection of discrete samples of any particular size. "The World Wide Web is an information space of interrelated resources. This information space is the basis of, and is shared by, a number of information systems. Within each of these systems, people and software retrieve, create, display, analyze, relate, and reason about resources." {http://W3.org} OTHER SOMEWHAT UNRELATED COMMENTS written earlier. There are a number of problems involved with the practical use of such system. When it is assumed that authors should be writing their documents online in realtime, then there is a danger that incomplete documents may be observed, producing problems of misleading interpretations, copyright and idea thefts, and what one might call the glass bathhouse effect, of making authors feel they are improperly exposed during their creative processes. For others, that seems no problem, because there is software for authoring that can automatically convert references from relative links to URI forms. But then the author has lost a certain amount of control over the work. For example many such software tools also automatically "pretty print" burdened format the work in progress, before posting the files to the web via FTP. In my view automatic pretty printing destroys much of the utility of HTML. It is a "mark up language" not a symbolic coding language. Pretty printing generally adds white space, either spaces or tabs, for the most part. Paragraphs were developed as a style during centuries of writing. However, what is often lost by too many automated formatting tools is the original paragraph design of the text, hidden by <SPANS>, <FONT SIZES FACES> and what not, The invention of CSS (style sheets) seems to have failed to make type specifications simpler, and less intrusive in actual documents, and instead merely invented some new professions, perhaps called that of "stylist." If one program worked perfectly, everyone would use it, if it were conveniently inexpensive. The StarOffice/Open Org office products were headed in the right direction for a while, but seem to have gotten snaffued. There is no product that allows tight production of decent HTML text, and does page formatting also in frameset contexts. It is insane to have to go back to a "text editor" to fix broken links, and "detail" pages, (yes "detail" like in car washing). If a document is properly formatted, the inclusion of html markup <TAGS> merely makes the document more readable. When the document is burdened by artifical symbols for common textual symbols, and excessively repetitious font declarations, the underlying text may be lost entirely to examination by ordinary human readers, and search engines as well. The text is no longer "marked up," but is instead, altered! For example the " " non-breaking space token is one of the most obnoxious devices ever invented. It definitely could have been designed as an encapsulated tag, such as <nb=#> where the number sign "#" is a parameter specifying the number of spaces from 0 to any number. When the number of spaces should be 1, then no argument would be needed, and thus this tag, <nb>, typically would be 2 characters shorter than " ". For advanced browsers, even fractional and negative (typeover) spaces might be practical as for example to make accents and math symbols, and strike through print (although the <strike> tag works fine for most uses, such as legal documents there are times when one might want double strike-throughs using equal signs, or maybe xxxxx's), and even drop shadows might be feasible. The <nb=#> might need to be augmented by another tag, <sp=#> to allow similar spacing without the non-breaking feature (that is one might say, "with wrap around"). These tags could be used similarly as "tab stops" are used in other document production tools. The use of " " ("non-breaking space") prevented some search engines from finding the words following, was evindently a subversion of the basic intention of making documents more easily accessible, and certainly makes reading html more difficult in many instances. It is virtually impossible to attribute these errors of design merely to poor judgement, when there were better and easily defined alternatives. Similarly the use of """ for double quote marks was an egregious offence against all writers of English, and possibly other languages. To compare or be force to search for two items such as "egregious offences" with ""egregious offences"" is obviously never going to always work properly if only because most people won't even think of it, and yet that is what many users of the World Wide Web are faced with if only they knew. In many situations the most common method of identifying a "title" has long been "to enclose it in quotes, if it is an "article" or "short story" and italisize it if it is the title of a book. Perhaps the developers of the Web did not have to attend grammar school, being enrolled in University by age 12, but presuming it was technical difficulties, we can say that regardless of cause, some wrong answers have been published. Another problem is the explicitly necessary parameter arguments requiring instantaneous access to the internet (such as definition statements used for variants of HTML and XHTML. This may be essential for some purposes, but it presuposes that 1) internet access is always available, 2) that anyone using such documents should be able to be tracked down by their necessity to link to the W3.org for specifications. There has always been a problem between computer programming and general computer document creation. The tendency exists for programmers to presume that end users should be exposed to the same kinds of messages needed during development. The only area where this does not seem to be true is in the gaming industry. It certainly is a problem in internet activities. grumpy@DrewAngel.com sending ~ Mon 2004'263.16501 @03:58 PDT September 20th Pacific DayLight Time
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 02:37:43 UTC