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

Re: Relationship Taxonomy Questions

From: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:36:44 -0800
Message-Id: <199701240036.QAA20018@boethius.eng.sun.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
CC: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM
[Joe English:]

| bosak@atlantic-83.eng.sun.com (Jon Bosak) wrote:
| > 2. I am quite convinced (and was before the ERB asked Eliot to start
| > this thread) that it is vital to make a strong distinction between
| >
| > * Link structure or topology [...]
| > * Linkend location/addressing [...]
| > * Link meaning [...]
| > * Link behavior, which can be divided into
| >   A. What the user sees:
| >      Presentation before link traversal
| >      Presentation during link traversal
| >      Presentation after link traversal
| >   B. What the system sees:
| >      State before link traversal
| >      State during link traversal
| >      State after link traversal
| >
| > I personally have never seen anything specified in connection with a
| > link that could not be subsumed under some combination of these
| > categories; if anyone else can think of something, I sure would like
| > to know what it is.
| Another category of link behaviour is "transclusion" or
| "simultaneous presentation" linking.  For example,
| HTML's <IMG SRC="..."> can be thought of as a transcluding
| contextual link; and HyBrowse can be configured to transclude
| the contents of an ilink anchor at the point where another anchor
| appears (useful for inlining annotations, etc).  Other types
| of links could specify simultaneous presentation, e.g.,
| "whenever the user lands on Section 2.3, display Figure 4
| in a pop-up window and play the audio file xyzzy.wav".

I note that you have described the link behavior by describing the

| With these types of links traversal is automatic, so there's
| no notion of presentation/state before/during/after traversal.

Then what the user sees and what the system sees is static, so
A1=A2=A3 and B1=B2=B3.  That wasn't my point.  My point was that once
you've completely described what the user sees and what the system
sees, you have described the behavior.  There isn't something else
left over.  My claim is that if there is some aspect of behavior left
over, then you have not completely described what the user sees and
what the system sees.  Behavior is appearance: that's all there is,
there ain't no more.*


* Memo to the Recording Angel: Please note that this is the only time
in my life that I have ever consciously agreed with a position taken
by the late B. F. Skinner.
Received on Thursday, 23 January 1997 19:38:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:06 UTC