Peter Constable wrote:
It seems to me that you are still missing the point I'm making.
end quote
Peter Constable then quoted part of a sentence that I had written.
For example, in everyday use of the English language, if I write the word
horse then you have a knowledge of what that word means
Peter Constable then wrote:
That assumes a prior agreement that we're speaking English. In context, you
may be able to infer that, though not necessarily. Out of context, the
possibility of misinterpretation is greater. If I write "chat", do you know
what I mean?
If I send you PUA characters, even in context you don't know what I mean
unless we have a separate agreement as to what the characters mean.
end quote
Peter Constable asks "If I write "chat", do you know what I mean?".
Hmm, let me ponder! :-)
Is it possible that you are referring to the answer that an Australian
numismatist might give if asked what is the bird on the reverse of a British
farthing coin of the mid-twentieth century?
(I found that in the dictionary just now. A useful dictionary, I checked
how to spell numismatist as well. :-) )
Is it possible that you are referring to a familiar, idle talk?
Is it possible that you are giving an instruction to participate in
familiar, idle talk?
Is it possible that you are referring to a cat, using the French language?
Is it possible that you are referring to a font of characters contained in a
file chat.ttf?
Is it possible that you are referring to a newly coined English word,
pronounced the same as the French word for cat, that means "a textual
ambiguity in data that if interpreted as a command might confuse a computer
system" and that you are trying to helpfully draw my attention to the need
for unambiguous messages?
Two examples of the use of the word are as follows.
The previous method suggested for encoding the name of the font that should
be used could produce a chat.
In order to avoid a chat being produced, the name of the font to be used is
always expressed as a full Uniform Resource Locator using the private use
area tag codes, though a software package using the data may, if it wishes
to take the risk, simply use the file name at the very end of the said
Uniform Resource Locator and search for that file name in its own local font
directory without accessing the internet.
Well, you had previously written ".... and my real point is that at some
point you and I have to have a prior agreement."
Let us please consider examples of three types of agreement.
One type of agreement is what I here term a direct agreement between two
people. An example of this type of agreement is an agreement between Peter
Constable and William Overington. We email each other using the English
language. So, meanings are, unless specifically stated otherwise, to be
construed as the meanings in English that two people having a discussion on
a matter concerning computer systems might reasonably expect.
Another type of agreement is what I here term an indirect agreement. An
example of this type of agreement is if someone places on a web site a list
of character codes using part of the private use area for, say, symbols from
early chemistry and someone else at a later time wishing to encode some
history of science study document about early chemistry finds the web page
and says, "Ah, someone has set out a convenient set of character codes. I
will use those."
Another type of agreement is what I here term an automated indirect
agreement. In this case a software package receives some information and
acts on it as it thinks fit.
Now, I suggest that the ambiguity of the use of the word chat that you raise
is only applicable to the automated indirect agreement. It is certainly
important in this context.
The prior agreement that the original author of the file of unicode plain
text needs to have with the person seeking to read that file of unicode
plain text need not be between the two people directly.
Peter Constable states "If I send you PUA characters, even in context you
don't know what I mean
unless we have a separate agreement as to what the characters mean."
May I call that sentence A?
May I, with permission, make a derivative work from that sentence and call
it sentence B?
Sentence B. If I send you PUA characters in a plain unicode text file, even
in context you don't know what I mean unless there exists a separate
document that explains what the characters mean.
Now if you had stated sentence B then I would agree with you entirely. The
problem that I have with sentence A is that it appears to insist that the
sender and recipient must make a mutual agreement, whereas I maintain that
sentence B allows that and also allows that the recipient may not have been
involved in any agreement with the sender whatsoever but may nevertheless
potentially establish meaning by obtaining explanation details, possibly
from the published work of a third party who is unaware of the existence of
either the sender of the document, the recipient of the document or the
document itself.
Are we both in fact saying the same thing or am I missing something? I am
quite prepared to accept that I might be missing something and am willing to
learn. If you feel that I am still missing the point that you are making
please feel free to express it again.
William Overington
26 April 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:16 EDT