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.