On Jun 16, 1:11pm, Mark Waks wrote:
> Subject: Re: PHIL: more machine thoughts
> Kevin writes a bunch of sensible stuff about issues that we don't need to
> worry about yet; I'll toss in one quibble, though:
> >Likewise is
> >discussion of navigation (flying/walking/etc), that is a browser issue, not
> >language issue.
> Yes and no. The problem is that the *paradigm* of navigation we are using
> needs to be reflected in the language. Specifically: if we go with the
> Cyberspace Protocol, then we simply don't need to deal with navigation
> at the language level -- all navigation is handled through the official
> space-defining sites. (If I grok what Mark is saying.) But if we go for
> a Web-like model (which I strongly prefer), then we need some mechanism
> in the language to say, "this thing is a doorway, and goes to this URL".
> We don't need to define many of the *details* at the language level, but
> I believe we need to know whether we're using links or not...
> (Something a lot like the CP could be implemented under a Web-like model,
> with a subset of sites agreeing to conform to a standard authority. But
> pure CP implies language differences from Web-based CP, I think...)
> -- Justin
> Random Quote du Jour:
> Re: The 1990 Mass. elections
> "This is our state.
> This is our state on politicians.
> Any Answers?"
> -- Keenan Ross
>-- End of excerpt from Mark Waks