Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #22153
| Message-ID | <3924590.UjxXySyg8o@PointedEars.de> (permalink) |
|---|---|
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
| Organization | PointedEars Software (PES) |
| Date | 2013-11-22 23:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: online gravitational field line explorer... |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.javascript |
| References | (8 earlier) <m2mwkxh15u.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl> <953v89ljd1s7c6kj54mu7fr1c4dsft6acb@4ax.com> <m2vbzkl42h.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl> <2573646.tVgHbsfKGD@PointedEars.de> <m2mwkwksyj.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl> |
| Followup-To | comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc |
Followups directed to: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc
Eric Bednarz wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>> This is off-topic here. F'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc.
>
> No thanks, I don't read that. But this is to bizarre to just let go,
> really. :-)
I do not know exactly what *type* of fallacy that is, but it is one. F'up2
set again. If you continue to post off-topic, I will ignore your posting.
(You should not misconstrue that as indication that you are right or have
“won” the discussion, then.)
>>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.text.sgml/sMADjGyC0R4/gSoVLO495cMJ>
>
>> I think the fact that you have to borrow arguments from other people in
>> order to have an argument *at all*
>
> Let me be the first to sympathize with your disapproval of "other
> people". They are the worst.
Argument at ridicule.
>> is indication that you have not thought this through.
>
> To be quite straightforward, I think you trying to look smarter than
> Eliot Kimber is something *you* haven't thought through.
Argument at authority.
>> The argument made there is flawed
>
> As I said before, "of course it is" (because every argument you don't
> agree with is pathologically flawed, did you ever notice that?).
Argumentum ad hominem.
>> The argument made there does not apply to HTML in particular because
>> Valid HTML, at least in version 4.01, *excludes* the SGML feature
>> (internal subset)
>
> I have three things to say about that:
>
> 1) Amazing. I think you either didn't read the article at all, or you
> didn't understand it at all. Which, at my end, amounts to the same
> thing.
I have read it, and I think I have understood it well enough to see that it
does not apply in this case *at least*.
> 2) You have an unfair advantage in a discussion like this, because you
> appear to have the divine power to make up vocabulary at will
> ("internal subset"?).
You want to read at least one of
<http://xml.coverpages.org/sgmlprodAgnew.html>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#wfc-PEinInternalSubset>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_type_definition#Associating_DTDs_with_documents>
For a start.
> 3) Naturally you are aware that the public text class 'DTD' in a formal
> public identifier, e.g. "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" means "document
> type declaration subset". See ISO 8879 clause 10.2.2.1.
See above.
>> that could put into doubt the intended type of a document.
>
> This supposed 'exclusion' constitutes one of the many reasons why HTML
> is not a conforming application of SGML.
It is not a *supposed* exclusion, it is a definitive one. HTML (4.01 at
least) is *intended* to be not extensible that way. (Which is why there is
XHTML, and now are “data-” attributes in HTML5.) Whether that makes it not
a conforming application of SGML or is instead a result of its SGML
declaration I gladly leave for other people to decide.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/sgmldecl.html> and similar documents
suffice for me to accept the fact that HTML was at least intended to be an
application of SGML. (The prose has it, too.)
<http://www.is-thought.co.uk/book/home.htm> pp. might also be helpful there.
> Cf. ISO 8879, clauses 15.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2.
>
> On the other hand, I suppose the ISO standard is just flawed (who's this
> Goldfarb character anyway?).
Argument at ridicule (and at authority) again. That said, Charles F.
Goldfarb would be the first to tell you that having *semantical* documents
was the very reason why he helped creating GML and later SGML. No wait, he
has written it down:
<http://www.sgmlsource.com/history/roots.htm>
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-18 20:17 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-18 23:21 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2013-11-19 09:36 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-19 12:10 +0200
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2013-11-19 11:01 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-19 13:33 +0200
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2013-11-19 07:44 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-19 16:53 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-19 12:03 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-19 16:11 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-19 19:21 +0200
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-20 15:48 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-20 19:15 +0200
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-21 20:19 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-21 22:52 +0200
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-22 17:33 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-22 19:50 +0200
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-23 14:17 +0000
Dollar sign in identifier names (was: online gravitational field line explorer...) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-11-22 19:49 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-11-21 22:53 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-21 23:25 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-22 16:57 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-22 19:12 +0200
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-11-22 19:00 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-22 21:04 +0200
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-11-22 23:46 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-11-23 01:21 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-11-22 18:49 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-22 20:06 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-11-22 22:49 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-22 23:52 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-11-23 01:40 +0100
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-19 12:05 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Tiger Sharktopus <tigersharktopus@gmail.com> - 2013-11-19 15:54 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 06:17 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-20 19:47 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2013-11-20 17:43 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 06:58 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-22 12:56 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-23 18:15 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-24 13:38 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-25 20:47 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-25 19:51 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-27 20:36 +0000
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-29 20:56 -0800
Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-12-01 19:28 -0800
csiph-web