From: Rik van Riel (riel@nl.linux.org)
Date: Mon Dec 27 1999 - 05:12:30 MST
On Sun, 26 Dec 1999, Michael M. Butler wrote:
> Rik:
>
> >IMHO links are part of the content of the text and
> >as such belong in the text, which is where they are
> >now.
>
> Well. many people agree with you. I say you're all wrong. :) But I
> understand why it seems like a good idea. Among other things,
> you're used to it, and you can tweak things in a flat text editor.
Not only that, but I use HTML as a way to _structure_
my documents and put most of the layout in a stylesheet.
(at least, for FUD-counter, http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org)
Links belong, in the eyes of a writer, to pieces of text,
so that is the most natural place to put them.
> You say it doesn't get in the way of the text. I say that's
> absolutely not true, _and_ I say you have a narrow idea of what
> text is: You mean flat ASCII, or perhaps in a wild flight of
> fancy, Unicode.
Not neccesarily, although I must say that I don't see
much use for the other types of "content" (quoted because
they are usually used as layout instead of adding to the
content) found on the web ... with the obvious exception
of images, which I don't really use as content because I
don't need it and I like to have my site accessible to
blind people too.
> Some will keep visualizing, and perhaps aiming for, something
> fundamentally better.
Do you have any requirements for or ideas about what
something "fundamentally better" should be like?
I think that links will still have to remain part of
the content (as opposed to layout or something else)
of the future web since they _are_ directly related
to content.
(whereas something like layout is not neccesarily
related to content at all, witness blind people
surfing the web with lynx and a braille bar)
cheers,
Rik
-- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:12 MST