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

Albert Lunde (Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu)
Mon, 1 May 95 12:09:57 EDT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Dave Raggett: "Re: Planning new RFCs! [was: REL and REV attributes -- a new RFC?]"
Previous message: Glenn Adams: "How to specify 10646 as document char set"
Maybe in reply to: Murray Maloney: "REL and REV attributes (Was: More comments on HTML 3.0)"
Next in thread: Craig Hubley: "Re: REL and REV attributes (Was: More comments on HTML 3.0)"

At 11:36 AM 5/1/95, Bert Bos wrote:
>Amazing how fast things can change on this list! Exactly a week ago,
>in the midst of a much longer document ("More comments on HTML 3.0"),
>I repeated something I had said earlier, namely that I didn't see what
>REV could add that REL couldn't express.
>
>That short line got picked up, but nobody seemd to agree with me. But
>suddenly everything has changed, REL is going to be standardized in an
>HTML-independent way, and REV is going to be dropped. Nice work!

I still think we should have both REV and REL, even if our standardization
results in saying some relations are the exact inverses of each other.

---
    Albert Lunde                      Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu

Next message: Dave Raggett: "Re: Planning new RFCs! [was: REL and REV attributes -- a new RFC?]"
Previous message: Glenn Adams: "How to specify 10646 as document char set"
Maybe in reply to: Murray Maloney: "REL and REV attributes (Was: More comments on HTML 3.0)"
Next in thread: Craig Hubley: "Re: REL and REV attributes (Was: More comments on HTML 3.0)"