• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:50:04 -0400
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC7AE@h...>

clbullar@i... (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) asks:
>So in effect, we can create namespace aggregates 
>which are not systematic. So via namespaces, 
>any set of XML application productions (by which 
>I mean, a production from HTML, from SVG, from 
>X3D, or XSLT) can be combined and be syntactically 
>correct.  

Yep.  Namespaces just give you big long labels defined by a system of
convenient abbreviations.

>How can one determine:
>
>1.  If a given combination is meaningful

Meaningful in what sense?  I apply meaning to what I find, which I think
is a lot of what Tim sees as causing "semantic drift".  (Nice concept,
BTW.)

>2.  How to discover that meaning

I develop meaning based on things I encounter.  Specs are sometimes
helpful, sometimes not.

>3.  How to assign that combination or even a single 
>    production to a running piece of code

I do what seems sensible in my particular coding context.  That's all.

Systematic?  No.  Part of systems?  Sure, and critically so.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• References:
  • Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Next by Date: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Previous by thread: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Next by thread: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread