On Wednesday, March 24, 2004 at 5:31:03 PM UTC-8, Jeff Rubard wrote:

opense...@graffiti.net (Jeff Rubard) wrote in message news:<49b5d62a.04032...@posting.google.com>...

"Philipp Lenssen" <in...@outer-court.com> wrote in message news:<c3edod$264usl$1...@ID-203055.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Jeff Rubard wrote:

Get What You Want And Want What You Have?: Intrinsic Models Of
Content As A Guide For Gentle Readerships

Could you give a small example?
E.g. a working (or someday working) XHTML snippet.

Well, no: "questions of detail" are all that this meta-tag methodology permits, i.e. it's an exercise in pointedly makeshift semantics for
XHTML which does not permit invocation within the language itself (in accordance with the standard scruples you may have learned from
Donald Davidson's work in college). What this metalanguage does

To get a sense of what I mean, consider the <def> tag. All credit
issues aside, the structural import of this tag as applied to a word
or phrase is that, by virtue of its "definitive" character, the
document as presented is not properly speaking "recursively
enumerable" -- that is to say, you're not *really* going to figure out
what that one part of the document means by considering how it "spins
out" in terms of evident textual connections (such as you could design
a recursive function to capture). It's a "rib", rather than a "shim",
and *encapsulates* the problem this one-shot content model is
intended to address (by itself being definitive or exemplary of
recursion a la the previous standard for formal semantics): thusly, it
should offset those elements in a document which are arguably
definitive.

2022 Update: My writing is drivel.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)