Re: XML semantics was: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy'

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill dehOra <WdehOra@interxtechnology.com>
To: xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org>
Date: Thursday, May 25, 2000 4:54 AM
Subject: RE: XML semantics was: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy'


>
>:You have to be able to write languages which qualify somethig quoted.
>: I must be able to write "<not><b>The sky is green</b></not>"
>:and send it to you without you holding me to
>:"<b>the sky is green</b>"
>
>Are you talking about being able to mention a thing as well as use it? so
we
>can avoid mistakes like:
>
>1: W3C is a consortium
>2: W3C is three letters in length
>
>where the second statement is a nonsense one.

Yes.  You must be able to write langauges whcih include quotation,
so that I can say, "You said, 'It is raining,' but it is not!" without being
held
to the "it is raining".

>In your example I (or more
>likely my processor) might *have* to hold you to <b>the sky is green</b> as
>being used rather than mentioned, because it isn't  quoted (at least in
>markup). If <not><"><b>The sky is green</b></"></not> was sent, I, or my
>processor could then infer that <b>The sky is green</b> is being mentioned
>not used and the sender is off the hook.


It is quoted -- that is what I am defining <not> to do: quote and deny
(for example in musings on a logical language in
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Toolbox
which is not complete but just jottings)

In fact,


>-Bill
>

Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 20:05:58 UTC