[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal?



At 8:17 AM 2/4/97, Jon Bosak wrote:
>I'm the token minimalist on this subject, but in the case of
>"traverse" I think we should take advantage of the existence of a term
>that precisely describes what we mean and isn't already grossly
>overloaded.
>
>Jon

I disagree, because traverse exactly implies _less_ than I want to do with
links. I don't consider it helpful to use the word traversal for the
rendering of footnotes, or the creation of local link maps without fetching
documents, or the associationg of glosses with original texts in
multi-lingual documents.

Traversal implies that there's only one thing to do with a link -- GOTO,
and that's a very limiting view.

   -- 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                    \__________________________