Re: Relationship Taxonomy Questions
Len Bullard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Joe English wrote:
> > Another category of link behaviour is "transclusion" or
> > "simultaneous presentation" linking.
> it can also be thought of and practically implemented
> as a "get" and avoid a lot of garbage description.
Ding! Thank you! I've been hunting for a good
word to describe this sort of link, and "get"
is just right: short, Anglo-Saxon, and to the point.
Much better than the polysllabic obfuscatory Latinate
terminology I've been using up to now.
> > [Jon Bosak]
> > > 2'. In particular, I think that it is of the utmost importance to
> > > distinguish meaning (relationship typing) from behavior (which
> > > includes presentation). I think that the analogy between semantic
> > > tagging vs. style information in SGML and relationship typing vs. link
> > > behavior is an apt and powerful one.
> And one not embraced by the majority of web applications. They
> may know something.
Wait a minute... I thought the whole premise of the XML
effort was that the architectural foundation of the
majority of Web applications -- HTML -- is not powerful
enough to enable the kinds of applications the SGML community
would like to see. Or does that premise only apply to
HTML's fixed tag-set and not to its (admittedly primitive)