[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

> >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.