Applying Different Styles To Alternate Text ?

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:14:16 -0400, "David Trimboli"
<david (AT) trimboli (DOT) name> wrote:

This is why DL is semantically incorrect.

Nothing in HTML is semantically incorrect because HTML is just too vague
and wooly to be even remotely Godelian. Read the notes in detail on <dl>
they're far from restrictive.

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:14:16 -0400, "David Trimboli"
david (AT) trimboli (DOT) name> wrote:

This is why DL is semantically incorrect.

Nothing in HTML is semantically incorrect because HTML is just too vague
and wooly to be even remotely Godelian. Read the notes in detail on <dl
they're far from restrictive.

"Godelian"? What does Godel have to do with it?

--
Jack.

Jack wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

Nothing in HTML is semantically incorrect because HTML is just too vague
and wooly to be even remotely Godelian. Read the notes in detail on <dl
they're far from restrictive.

"Godelian"? What does Godel have to do with it?

Gödel's incompleteness theorem can be stated in the vague hand-waving
fashion as, "Any usefully sophisticated system of logic cannot help but
also be capable of stating internal contradictions." e.g. "This
statement is false" is self-evidently contradictory, yet it's a natural
consequence of the power of English. There is no Babel17, a perfectly
expressive, logical, yet uncontradictory language.

HTML semantics avoids this, not by dodging Gödel in some unfathomable
manner, but by being so trivially un-useful that it barely even
approaches the problem.

Andy Dingley wrote:

Jack wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

Nothing in HTML is semantically incorrect because HTML is just
too vague and wooly to be even remotely Godelian. Read the notes
in detail on <dl> they're far from restrictive.
"Godelian"? What does Godel have to do with it?

Gödel's incompleteness theorem can be stated in the vague hand-waving
fashion as, "Any usefully sophisticated system of logic cannot help
but also be capable of stating internal contradictions."

Oh. I see what you're getting at, but I don't think that's true of the
incompleteness theorem, and I can't make sense of that statement about
systems of logic. It's illogical, Captain.

A more accurate formulation of the theorem is "In any /formal system/
there are true propositions that are not theorems of that system", and I
can't see a way of transcribing that into your formulation.

But perhaps you're just saying that HTML isn't a /formal system/, which
would be true. It has neither axioms, propositions nor theorems; it
doesn't resemble a formal system at all.


--
Jack.