W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2007

Re: XHTML2.0 - transclusion

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:31:23 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200701300731.l0U7VND02479@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

> [1] http://xanadu.com/xuTheModel/

Although this claims a very long association with hypertext, on a quick
scan, I couldn't find any of the detailed history of that involvment that
would have convinced me that they were the prime movers for the concept,
as generally understood.

Moreover, whilst the thesis on the page referenced is that the problem is
with the standards, I think the real problem is with the users.  For
example, there is just no committment from commercial page developers to
avoid link rot (many don't even provide documentation on non-current 
products and Microsoft is notorious for having links with very short
lifetimes).

Also, even by my definition of hypertext, most web pages (i.e. the
vast majority of vanity and commercial ones) are not hypertext.  I say
that on the basis that I don't consider lists of links that are not
embedded in the body text and embedded links of the form "click here"
to be true hypertext.

We've already touched on copyright.  My impression is that the desire
of most businesses is to try to give less rights than are given by
statute, rather than more, and, often, to use technical means to 
achieve that.

My feeling is that the demand for their sort of hypertext would be
limited to some technology companies, where there was strong managament
commitment, and only for intranet use, and the sort of academic and
semi-academic users who currently generate valid HTML.  It would
therefore be a relatively small niche.
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 07:31:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:08 GMT