Re: More comments on the HTML 3.0 draft

Paul Burchard (burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu)
Tue, 25 Apr 95 04:27:25 EDT

Bert Bos <bert@let.rug.nl> writes:
> p.18 "LINK":
> I still don't see why we need both REL and REV. They have
> exactly the same meaning.

(I assume you meant, exactly the _opposite_ meaning.)

That's the point. Since links have two ends, it's inherent in the
design that you want to be able to express reverse relationships.
Given both REL and REV, the reversal can be accomplished precisely.
(E.g., <A REV="Next"> to roll back history.)

But given only REL, one would be forced to rely on an ad-hoc
catalog of "reverse words" (parent/child, made/maker, next/back,
etc). Beyond some dictionary of registered antonyms, there would be
no reliable way to reverse relationships.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard <burchard@math.utah.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------