>
> I find Bert Bos' de(con)struction of proposed link relations
> appealing. I'm even a little wary of 'TOP' though, without a more
I don't find the proposal appealing at all.
> complete description; if you presume PARENT, CHILD, 'TOP' is where you
> get when PARENT runs out.
I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I been
an implementor and user of various systems over the past 15+ years
which were concerned with storing and helping users navigate hierarchical
information. Hypertext and the Web is simply another way of
representing the relationships between pieces of data. Authors and
readers have mental paradigms for dealing with what they read.
Our efforts will be most effective if they leverage well understood
paridigms where appropriate. I believe the lists Murray and Dave Raggett
have suggested are reasonably close to an initial set. A few to add
and a few to delete and probably a number of 'names' to change but
a reasonable set to work with.
>> re. moving the discussion elsewhere
As far as I'm concerned, a mailing list not directly sponsored by this
working group is an inappropriate place to discuss the group's work
product. If the HTML 2 words about REL/REV were clear and well
understood and the HTML 3 proposal was clear and well understood this
discussion wouldn't be necessary.
Several of us, in various contexts, have sugggested that it might
help the WG focus its efforts if multiple properly archived lists
were used to partition the discussion. All the feedback I noted was
negative so here we are.
Dave Morris