d-insideSimple.jpgDescription: JPEG image
Hi. Sorry, I impulsively sent without proofing again. >I am not talking about d.2. I am talking about d.contents. >d.2 was not anywhere in your picture. Right. That's what I meant. >I thought that you said that d was not part of the contents of A, even >though c-d. Correct. The negward connection B-d on d.inside ends downward interpretation of the contents list. With this note I am sending again as attachments my crummy sketches to explain this. Study the pix and see if it becomes clear why. - Picture 1: THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT - Picture 2: WITH ADDITIONAL EXTRANEOUS CONNECTIONS, IGNORED BY THE SYSTEM The two pictures are exactly equivalent. These illustrate the CUTOFF RULE: the next negward link in d.inside TRUNCATES INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTENTS LIST. This rule allows connections like your c-d, for whatever use the user can dream up, such as a crawler on d.contents. >I said that you were mistaken, because the user made the >c-d link on purpose and ZigZag has no right to disregard that. Then the user has to disconnect B-d, because it ends the list. * * * The idea is to be as permissive as possible. Users can do what they like, as long as they understand what the rules are. Woe betide the cleverness of the partially informed! (And I ought to know.) * * * Best, T At 06:06 PM 11/1/98 -0500, you wrote: > >> >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, >not d.2. > >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. > > >
d-insideSimple.jpg
Description: JPEG image
d-inside Messy .jpg
Description: JPEG image
____________________________________________________ Theodor Holm Nelson, Visiting Professor of Environmental Information Keio University, Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Fujisawa, Japan Home Fax from USA: 011-81-466-46-7368 (If in Japan, 0466-46-7368) Professorial home page http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~ted/ _____________________________________________________ Permanent: Project Xanadu, 3020 Bridgeway #295, Sausalito CA 94965 Tel. 415/ 331-4422, fax 415/332-0136 http://www.xanadu.net PERMANENT E-MAIL: ted@xxxxxxxxxx _____________________________________________________ Quotation of the day, 98.11.01: "Life and death are both hereditary." TN59