Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal?

At 11:09 AM 31/01/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>1.4.g Should we define/discuss traversal?

I'm beginning to think we should leave this out.  In the spec, we wrote
"traverse" means "use".  If we believe this, why don't we just say "use"?
Unless we are going to be forced to specify some behaviors; in which 
case a specific term like traversal is probably called for. - Tim