- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:17:50 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
>On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 14:30 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >> [...] Ive never even heard >> you make a case for your (Tim's?) position. > >Yes, you have, many times. Most recently, by your >own admission: > >[[ >>(I could give a counter-argument, but I'm sure you a have >>seen it before and it didn't convince you then, so it's >>probably not worth going into again now. >>In case anybody is new to this conversation, > >see http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/NameMyth for the position >>that I hold.) >> >Insofar as I follow that document, it seems to be about ... As I went on to say, that document, i.e. Tim's 'NameMyth' note, seems to be about a different topic altogether. Or maybe a very, very special case, or something. Virtually all the examples of names that it uses are identifiers from computational systems. (It does mention road names in towns at one point, in passing, to illustrate the idea of naming hierarchies.) It doesn't make any kind of case that I can see for the idea that reference and access are the same notion. If anything, it PRESUMES, without a shred of argument or support, that names ARE used for access: which even if it were true (and it obviously isn't, in general) doesn't establish that access and reference are related. Pat >]] > -- Pat Hayes, Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:59:23 -0500 > > > >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 20:18:05 UTC