Putting it back on the user sounds right

From: N. C a r r o l l (ncarroll@hastingsresearch.com)
Date: Mon Jan 08 2001 - 22:19:05 PST

----- Original Message -----
From: Lee Iverson <leei@ai.sri.com>

> >> And this is actually the only difficult design issue that needs to be
> >> resolved given this architecture: when a Node is updated, do all
> >> documents which reference that Node automatically get updated as well?
> >
> >? I don't think there's a choice there, since many links will
> Ah, but I haven't even started talking about links yet (or
> OHS-conforming docs for that matter). I'm only considering reuse of
> content within a repository (a la XInclude or somesuch).

Ah, I see. The lucidity of your prose led me to believe I had
captured the meaning. Yes, in that case I imagine "putting it
back on the user" makes sense. Or giving both user and
author choices.

(Maybe we need some new terms for OHS, as "user" could
mean "the one who packaged a node with something else,"
i.e. "editor" -- or the final recipient of that package.)

Haven't found anything in Augment docs about this point.
But it might be worth asking Doug? He might have thought this
out already.

> Links and link management are a whole other matter entirely.

Links raise a similar issue, though: whatever the update
scheme is, the end-users have to know what they're looking
at. Discussed it with Sheldon earlier, and we are both of the
mind that color is a damn good way to communicate
(corrupted though it has been by the tutti-frutti stuff from
MS and web designers).

E.g., the HTML linkcolor spec could be extended:

In fact it could get much finer-grained than that.

(Color doesn't work for the color-blind -- but that
would be Sheldon's workaround.)


Travel: ncarroll@iname.com

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 17:57:59 PDT