Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Node Sequencing [Was: **** Instant Outlining !!! ***]
Murray Altheim wrote: (01)
> I'm trying to figure out how to participate in
> the OPML design process without joining Yahoo Groups, since I
> won't encourage getting spammed ad infinitum by giving them
> my email address. (02)
I wish I had been that smart. My spam levels have reached
egregious proportions. (03)
> I was trying to figure out how to add multiple dimensions (ala
> Hytime) when I gave up to concentrate on other things (I think
> about that era I got transferred into JavaSoft).
> has an <outline> element whose content is attribute-based, which I
> think is really abusive of what is an "attribute", and problematic.
> I'd recommend remaking that as element content so that it can
> contain markup (04)
That strikes me as eloquent, and necessary (05)
> (I'd likely write up an XHTML+OPML DTD for this) or
> do something similar to my earlier SeqML language by having the
> <outline> element be a link to a content-bearing node. This latter
> idea *really* opens up OPML as a possible organizing outline for
> something like NODAL's nodes. (06)
Sounds promising, from here. (07)
----Original Message---- (08)
> Eric Armstrong wrote:
> > play machine wrote:
> >>... a lack of expressive flexibility of all hierarchically
> >>structured presentations, be they supported by tools
> >>or not. It may sound trivial, but this exactly is the
> >>reason why I don't like outliners. Not in NNTP, not in
> >>Notes, and also not in Groove. They are too rigid:
> >>just try to reassign a text snippet to another train
> >>of thought.
> > Absolutely correct. Full hierarchies fail in a lot of ways.
> > For this, categories and more maleable node-graphs are
> > required. A steamshovel is better than the manual version,
> > too. But a hand shovel still beats the hell out of shoveling
> > dirt with your hands.
> >>There are also no simultaneous tracks
> >>(crosspostings are strictly forbidden here), plain
> >>trees only, no meshes, no rhizomes.
> > Valid criticism about things that definitely need to be addressed.
> > However, there will always be two ways to look at the
> > content in such a system. One is TouchGraph / Tinderbox
> > mechanism, with graphs. The other will be a hierchical
> > projection of the underlying data. I suspect that the interface
> > in use here -- with the potential for collaborative sharing --
> > will remain in use, even when deeper semantics are implemented
> > underneath. (09)