From jjllambias@gmail.com Sun Jul 24 14:28:51 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.192])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52)
	id 1Dwo1d-0000Ni-Rz
	for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:28:49 -0700
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i23so813004wra
        for <llg-members@lojban.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=VhsBdBYcufYAnF3OoyOXB6ayp9MgoZt+5btgSjiaiQBJY8qf7SvYvoJJqGb7TZ991mUSufYa6waDH6VyEDAsDTYioYjz9soqEwcAvpL7AA2/vqkgGm15aZLPKTHlxXlZzb3rnLp6QTMGvoN8epbnus1ekWJsilnR1/I4+5BmKM0=
Received: by 10.54.141.18 with SMTP id o18mr1999841wrd;
        Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.68.12 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <925d175605072414283ba9d1a5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:28:42 -0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
Subject: [llg-members] Re: Supplicatory Model: papri
In-Reply-To: <007d01c58f19$acc170c0$973e0751@sonyvaio>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20050716010140.GU2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
	 <42D95380.802@lojban.org>
	 <20050718044439.GE2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
	 <42DB5132.1040507@lojban.org>
	 <925d1756050722083624970a05@mail.gmail.com>
	 <007d01c58f19$acc170c0$973e0751@sonyvaio>
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-archive-position: 39
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org
X-list: llg-members

On 7/22/05, And Rosta <a.rosta@v21.me.uk> wrote:
> My point was that a physical page gives a chunk of text that
> is delimited by constraints of the medium rather than of
> the textual content. To a large extent the 'nonphysicality'
> of the e-medium gets rid of such constraints, so there is
> no close analogue of the physical page. But of the analogues
> that there are, the least distant is the screenful.

I don't know how we could measure that, but in any case that is
not the usual analogy in English. In the analogy used in English, 
you can have more than one page showing in one screenful, and 
usually only a part of a page shows throw a window. When you 
reduce the size of the window, you reduce the part of the page
that you can see through the window, but the page remains the 
same.  

To me, the best analogy is that a page is a container that can
be filled with visual content, and in the case of {papri}, they are
orgenized as part of a connected whole. A page need not contain 
just text, it can also contain pictures for example. Or, it could 
be empty. So many, but not all, webpages are or can be te tcidu.

mu'o mi'e xorxes