[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: *Still further Clarif. re inside/contents (was: Re: Surplus meaning & anthills (was: Re: FURTHER Clarif. re inside/contents

> Hi.  Sorry, I impulsively sent without proofing again.
> >I am not talking about d.2.  I am talking about d.contents.
> >d.2 was not anywhere in your picture.
> Right.  That's what I meant.


> With this note I am sending again as attachments
>  my crummy sketches to explain this.
> Study the pix and see if it becomes clear why.

I've seen them before, and it's still not clear why.


If the user wants `additional extraneous links',  why don't they make
them in an additional extraneous dimension, instead of making them in
d.contents, which has a system-imposed semantics?  That seems to me
like the simplest way to make sure that the system ignores them.  Then
you don't need a rule about how a negward connection in a totally
different dmiension somehow nullifies the effect of a link.

> >I thought that you said that d was not part of the contents of A, even
> >though c-d.  
> Correct.  The negward connection B-d on d.inside
>  ends downward interpretation of the contents list.

Yes, I understand that you said that.  My reply says that I think that
you're making a mistake.

Here's Figure 1:

  >>> d.inside  vvv d.contents

  A - C

  B - D

Figure 2:

  A - C             
  B - D

In figure 1, C is in A and D is in B.

In figure 2, C is in A and D is in B.

You say that in figure 2, D is *not* in A.

I said, ``Why not?  The user made C-D for a reason.  Your rule tells
ZigZag to ignore the link from C-D in figure 2.  You want ZZ to behave
the same way whether the C-D link is present or not.  But this
disables the user by ignoring the links that they have made.''

> >I said that you were mistaken, because the user made the
> >C-D link on purpose and ZigZag has no right to disregard that.
> Then the user has to disconnect B-D, because it ends the list.

And what if they want D to be in B as well as in A?

> * * * The idea is to be as permissive as possible.  Users can
>  do what they like, as long as they understand what the rules are.

There has to be a collaboration between ZZ and the user, because ZZ
provides the basic interpretation and meaning of the structure that
the user builds.  

>  Woe betide the cleverness of the partially informed!  (And I
>  ought to know.) * * * 

I've done the best I can can to inform myself.  If you'd like to
inform me further, please do.