W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > February 1997

Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal?

From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:16:22 -0500
Message-Id: <v02130503af1d25e7dc63@[]>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
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

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                    \__________________________
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 1997 13:15:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:07 UTC