Re: REL and REV attributes (Was: More comments on HTML 3.0)

Brian Behlendorf (
Thu, 27 Apr 95 16:46:44 EDT

On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Craig Hubley wrote:
> > My vote goes for keeping REL and REV. The fact is that many
> > relationships are not strictly binary. Additionally I should not have to
> > have write access to a remote file to express how I relate to it (not
> > just how it relates to me).
> Yes of course. No one is arguing to remove REL and REV, are they ?

Er, I think that's what started this thread, someone considered them
synonymous (or perfectly antonymous, thus redundant).

> > Extra-document navigational paradigms are good. I'd like to see a browser
> > (or write a Java applet :) that did an MHEAD depth-first traversal on a site
> > going 6 or levels deap that built a sketch of the infospace on the site, with
> > "parents" (or their semantic equivalent given a large glossary for the
> > "higher" in a hierarchy) towards the top and children (or equiv) towards
> > the bottom. To this list, it's not so important *how* it's laid out as
> > that we provide the mechanisms for doing so.
> Yes. Notecards had such a browser, but it logged *all* link types and used
> 'contains' links to build the hierarchy (although all the links were shown).
> In the long run the 'contains' links (which forced users to put documents
> in a 'folder') were abandoned and cited as the single biggest pain by authors.
> But so much add on software lazily looked for 'contains' instead of author-
> specified organizing criteria that effectively the 'contains' stuck hard...

One bad implementation doesn't negate the concept.

> > cyclical graph of the space you've *traversed*. The sooner
> Doesn't IBM's OS/2 Warp browser attempt to do this ? I haven't seen it.

I am pretty sure there was a Win3.1 app that did something like this, at
least, though I haven't been able to try it out.


--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/