Re: HTML Link Type Model

Murray Maloney (murray@sco.COM)
Wed, 17 May 95 13:10:34 EDT

Roy T. Fielding writes:
> Joe said:
[stuff elided]
> ... Mind you, "the WWW model" was never implemented.

Exactly. But the model that I have described has been implemented.

> > (Murray's paper has the same interpretation.)
> I still think the definitions I gave are more accurate -- both
> REL and REV do specify specific source and destinations (assuming we
> don't invent multi-ended links).

I don't know about y'all, but we have multi-ended links already.
This is currently accomplished through the use of a cgi-bin
script to resolve a request for a named document of which there
might be multiple occurences.
> ... I'm saying that the WWW link model does not adequately define
> the meaning of relationships based on noun phrases.

We agree on that much. So, having abandoned the "WWW link model",
can you tell me why SCO and the HTML WG shoul abandon REL/REV
as SCO has implemented.
> >
> > Ah, I see... "REL" labels the link, while "ROLE"
> > would label the *target* of the link. Correct?
> Yep.

But by abandoning REL/REV, you lose the expressive power
provided by describing the relationship in both directions.

> > Would it be possible to simply change the official
> > interpretation of the "REL" attribute to match
> > existing practice? (SCO's browser for one, and
> > I know of at least one document that makes heavy
> > use of <LINK> with relations defined as above.)
> Yes. We could instead define a consistant semantic for noun phrases.
> For example:
> when link type = noun, then SRC's REL is DEST
> when link type = verb, then SRC REL DEST
> which works only so long as you can differentiate between
> nouns and verbs (probably not a problem). In that way, we can
> at least provide guidance to authors regarding how to name a type.

Or we could abandon the use of verbs along with the "WWW link model"
and just stick with nouns. Would that work for you?