Re: HTML link types - how much must be specified in the standard ?

Paul Burchard (burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu)
Tue, 16 May 95 15:35:59 EDT

Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
> Another idea is to accept the idea of REL values as a comma
> separated list, and have keywords like "ACTIVE" which
> indicate deviations from the static relationships
> model. On the other hand this means not all combinations
> make sense and I'd have to write something like
> REL="BACK,ACTIVE" instead of REL=BACK.

Actually this is a special case of my proposal to support
relational operators. Intersection is one useful operator; some
others are:
* Inverse: absorbing REV into REL
* Product: independent typing of the two link ends
* Join: indirect relationships (e.g., glossary's author)
While "," may be a good notation for Intersection, I don't want to
see the REL value restricted to a comma-separated list.

See my post on "Links and Interactivity" for related comments.

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