Re: RE Chngbars Elements

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jul-Oct 1993
• Next message: Marc Andreessen: "snapshot of mosaic docs available via ftp"
• Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: Change bars "

From: Steve Putz <putz@parc.xerox.com>
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: RE Chngbars Elements
Cc: terry@ora.com
Message-id: <93Aug6.174816pdt.2445@spoggles.parc.xerox.com>
Date: 	Fri, 6 Aug 1993 17:48:08 PDT
Status: RO

> ... you'll
> have no way to know that the change that goes to the end of
> PARA foo is the same change that begins the next PARA, bar.
>
> So we need to use EMPTY elements instead of elements with
> content.


Ah, but I claim it is just as reasonable to insist that they are NOT
the same change, since they are in different paragraphs.  Does this
view cause problems?

Does the other (id) scheme allow DISJOINT change sections that are part
of "the same change"?  If so I see that as useful.  Otherwise allowing
a given change to span (only) contiguous tag boundaries doesn't seem
very useful.


Steve Putz
Xerox PARC