Re: 3.1 b-h: BEHAVIOR

At 10:18 03/03/97 GMT, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>I think in fact groves provide the only
>sensible way to specify what we mean in an application-neutral way.
>So let's try that, using the name SNODE for the node in the grove of
>class Element which instantiates the linking element we're concerned with:
>INCLUDE:  On actuation, replace the content of SNODE with the grove
>fragment (one or more nodes) which instantiates the target resource.
>REPLACE:  On actuation, replace SNODE (or (grove-root SNODE), see
>above) with the node (must be exactly one) which instantiates the
>target resource.
>NEW:  On actuation, construct a new grove which instantiates the
>target resource.

I don't like the idea of modelling link traversal as grove mutation.
Suppose I have an XML editor and an XML document with a SHOW=INCLUDE link.
We can imagine two distinct operations:

a) traverse the link, and
b) change the document, replacing the link element by the linked-to resource.

I would suggest it is (b) rather than (a) that is appropriately modelled by
mutating the grove.