Re: The value of navigability (related to META...)

nicka@mccmedia.com (Nick Arnett)

Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
Next message: Nick Arnett: "Taxonomies"
Previous message: Alastair Aitken CLMS: "No subject (file transmission)"
Maybe in reply to: Alastair Aitken CLMS: "Re: The value of navigability (related to META...)"
Reply: Nick Arnett: "Re: The value of navigability (related to META...)"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 17:49:16 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <199406071546.IAA16236@nova.unix.portal.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: nicka@mccmedia.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: nicka@mccmedia.com (Nick Arnett)
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: The value of navigability (related to META...)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0

At 10:57 AM 6/7/94 +0200, Gavin Nicol wrote:

>  OK. If, as it seems, you are saying that document structure markup
>  is unimportant, I'll have to disagree strongly. The value of
>  structured data cannot be underestimated. I *do* agree that
>  navigational markup should be an integral part of any networked
>  documents.

The whole piece was about priorities -- the *relative* value of these
things.  I would never suggest that document structure markup is
unimportant.  It's very important.  The only point I was trying to make was
that navigational markup adds greater value than structural markup in the
context of the Web.  That doesn't imply anything about the absolute value
of each.  They're both high.  In a perfect world, where one didn't have to
set priorities, one would want each fully implemented immediately.

>>I've never really made the distinction between net navigation and
>>sub-document navigation.  That's a matter of ownership and physical
>>location, primarily, I think.
>
>  I agree. So why build the one without the other? The best thing I
>  could imagine would be a single method for naming a collection of
>  documents, a document, or a part of a document.

Please don't make my words into absolutist flame-bait.

Nick

Multimedia Computing Corp.
Campbell, California
----------------------------------------------------------
"We are surrounded by insurmountable opportunity." -- Pogo