Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal?

At 11:09 AM 1/31/97, Tim Bray wrote:
>1.4.g Should we define/discuss traversal?

I think the term traversal implies a specific processing model too
precisely; I want to use links to write my footnotes, but have them
rendered inline. Calling this traversal is consistent but confusing.
Similarly for drawing a map based on a set of links (where we might not
even have to fetch the documents).

I think the linking markup should talk about processing, and the link
processing spec needs to define a variety of kinds of traversal.

  -- David

I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________