[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Surplus meaning & anthills (was: Re: FURTHER Clarif. re inside/contents
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Surplus meaning & anthills (was: Re: FURTHER Clarif. re inside/contents
- From: Mark-Jason Dominus <mjd@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 18:06:29 -0500
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 Nov 1998 19:40:23 +0900." <184.108.40.206.19981101194023.01138c30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
> >If c is linked to d, that should express something different from c not
> >linked to d. But you are saying that regardless of whether or not the
> >link is there ZZ will treat it the same way, as if there was no link.
> >Why should it do that? If the user makes a link, it's not because
> >they want ZZ to ignore it.
> >If ZZ does that, it is taking the power of expression from the user by
> >assigning the same meaning to the presence and absence of a link.
> >(``Sorry, you are no longer allowed to use the word `red'.'')
> For instance, with regard to the example given:
> the user may *want* these successive contents-lists linked
> in d.2, so they can be o'ercrept by some crawler mechanism
> without having to go up a level, over and down, etc.
I am not talking about d.2. I am talking about d.contents.
d.2 was not anywhere in your picture.
Here's your picture again:
> >> >> The expected structures is:
> >> >> d.contents \/ d.inside =>
> >> >> A a
> >> >> b
> >> >> c
> >> >> B d
> >> >> e
> >> >> f
> >> >>
d.2 is not in evidence here. The vertical dimension is d.contents,
I thought that you said that d was not part of the contents of A, even
though c-d. I said that you were mistaken, because the user made the
c-d link on purpose and ZigZag has no right to disregard that.