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

Re: ERB terminology votes



At 20:10 15/02/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>We had discovered that, even at this late date, there was still room for 
>confusion as to which bits were which; so Steve and I, inspired by 
>Henry, cooked up a simple picture that was very helpful:

I find this very useful indeed, thanks. All I would add is p6:

><BOOK><A NAME="foo" HREF="http://x.com/y/z.html#SEC1">Click here</A></BOOK>
>|------------------------------p0-----------------------------------------|
>      |------------------------p1----------------------------------|
>                    |----------p2-------------------|
>                          |----p3------------------|
>                          |----p4-------------| |p5| |----p6---|

as this resolves the interesting ontological debate as to whether the link 
is in fact the assertion, or whether the link already existed and the 
linking machinery merely *describes* it: the answer is in the semantics of 
p6. In the example above, it's an assertion, as "Click here" does not 
possess any prior identifiable relation with p3. If the content of p1 had 
said "See section 1 of my book", then the link had prior existence, and the 
machinery simply describes or implements it. My $0.02, beer to follow.

>   There is an interesting debate, in the case of the example, as to 
>   whether one or two resources are involved.  

Strictly by the terms of http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Architecture/Terms,
I would say p1 _is_ an "addressable resource" but only (a) because is
contains an identifier attribute (NAME="foo") and (b) in limited terms,
because addressing via CDATA attributes is usually restricted to HTML,
and we are expressly not limiting ourselves to "the Web" here.

I think this one _will_ fly.

///Peter
-- 
> to discover 1000s of internal "homepages" that grew overnight
> like magic mushrooms on a rich motherlode of corporate horseshit.
                          Copyright 1996, IBM.  All Rights Reserved