- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil.kjernsmo@astro.uio.no>
- Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:10:43 +0100 (MET)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 Jukka.Korpela@hut.fi wrote: >On 8 Dec 1999 rev-bob@gotc.com wrote: >> > corporation > company > department > project > product >If you ask me, I'd say: to allow user agents set up user interfaces which >are suitable for the particular user environment and uniform across >documents. The hierarchy issue is a bit tricky. But in the <link> >approach, it could be handled by rel values like "up", "up2", "up3", etc. Well, I think an important question is: "Do we really need all these hierarchies?" After all, it is the web.... Considering the above example, for some, if they know the structure of the corporation, the above would be sensible, but many customers would probably rather see the structure corporation > products > purpose I personally think hierarchies often gets you in more trouble than it solves. >> HTML is at least supposed to be a *semantic* language > >Exactly. And the relationship between, say, a document and its successor >in a logical sequence of documents or its "parent" in a logical hierarchy >is semantic, or structural. That, I agree. >We aren't actually discussing _new_ tags right now but modifying the >definition of <link> to make it (more) useful. But, couldn't all this be achieved by RDF? It seems to me that there should be a formal specification of the contents of REL and REV attributes, just the basic stuff, next, previous etc. but leave the rest to RDF, would be the way to go. Best, Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo Graduate astronomy-student Problems worthy of attack University of Oslo, Norway Prove their worth by hitting back E-mail: kjetikj@astro.uio.no - Piet Hein Homepage <URL:http://www.astro.uio.no/~kjetikj/> Webmaster@skepsis.no
Received on Thursday, 9 December 1999 05:10:53 UTC