Re: Portals vs Links

Mark Waks ([email protected])
Fri, 5 May 95 15:31:40 EDT


>But what about a pair of "Link+Windows." One from world A to world B and
>one
>from world B to world A.
>
>The implications of a bidirectional portal seem BIG. Which world owns it?
>
>I think that forcing spatial continuity in the language is too restrictive.

But I'm *not* forcing spatial continuity!

Please, *listen* to what I'm saying here. The point of the portals
proposal is that links are *unidirectional*, and don't get bound
until *browse* time.

If a pair of sites *chooses* to bind bidirectionally, then that's
their decision. (And ownership is their own problem.) It is *not*
inherent in the idea...

-- Justin
Who is beginning to feel like an echo...

Random Quote du Jour:

"4: It is unethical to use whoopee cushions on anxious patients.
7: It is unethical to interpret missed sessions due to death as resistance.
9: It is unethical to measure the lateness of compulsive patients
in milliseconds."
-- from "Ethical Priciples of Psychologists: An Update"