Re: Last call: Intro, SGML, MIME sections

Alex Hopmann (
Thu, 4 May 95 22:04:08 EDT

>On Thu, 4 May 1995, Alex Hopmann wrote:
>> would stand out from the more "major" hyperlinks. It would be interesting to
>> be able to distinguish a link as a glossary link or a non-glossary link and
>> have the browser render them differently (Maybe make the glossary entries
>> more subtle).
>I agree ... I think there at least three reasons for hyperlinking to
>other information ...
> a) Define the structure of a collection
> b) Reference related information
> c) Reference a definition or detailed explanation
>I believe mode (b) is what HTML and browsers do reasonably well today
>and links become meaningless if used for (c) and clutter the view with
>two many links.
Dave Morris replied:
>And I think coding this differentiation of structural intent must be
>dealt with in a future 2.+ level of HTML. My sense for the moment is
>that REV/REL and/or ROLE attributes in the HTML 3.0 draft have the
>potential for addressing the problem IFF we at least have some set
>of pre-defined values to represent these modes. Once the structure is
>coded, browsers can differentiate them selves by how well / uniquely
>they present this information.
Good idea Dave, so how about it Dan, put REL="GLOSSARY" in the appropriate
places so we can experiment with it?

:) Sounds like alot of work to me so feel free to disregard the above
suggestion. But whoever is collecting the list of ideas for REL/REV values,
make sure "GLOSSARY" is in there, or possibly Definition. There is probably
10 other things you could call it also.. Yet another example of why
standardized names for these things would be useful. I think it would be
great if my browser knew that glossary definitions should be hilighted
differently than normal hot links (and thus make documents like the HTML one
alot less busy). But this will almost be impossible unless we have a list of
standard definitions for these things.

Alex Hopmann
ResNova Software, Inc.