[5951] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Why documents? (was Languages (was Re: Forms support in clients))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathaniel Borenstein)
Fri Sep 30 18:52:41 1994
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 23:48:33 +0100
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: nsb@nsb.fv.com
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Excerpts from www-talk: 30-Sep-94 Why documents? (was Languag.. A M. I.
t. Future@media. (1513)
> So, Nate, do you think my imagined dichotomy between process (program) and
> product (document) is false?
(First of all, although it's no big deal, I really dislike "Nate" -- I
tell my Girl Scout troop that they can either call me "Nathaniel" or
"Dr. Borenstein", and it's amazing how many choose the latter.)
Anyway, false is kind of a strong term, but I do think your dichotomy
misses the mark. I think that there are really two pieces to a
presentation engine such as Mosaic: the program that does the
presenting, and the documents that it presents. So far, this sounds
like your dichotomy. The difference is, I think that the documents that
such programs present ALSO need to be able to include arbitrary programs
of their own. That is, there's the built-in process and the
per-document extended process. I think it's the latter that we're
talking about here. (At least, that's what *I* am trying to talk
about.... :-)
