At 01:31 20/12/2000 +1300, Matthew Thomas wrote:
>"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
> >...
> > A nitpick, but possibly an important one. A web cannot be a
> > hierarchy, it can be sliced as a hierarchy but its really a network.
> > The purpose of creating a hierarchy is to map to a file system that is
> > inadequate at representing information networks.
>
>No. One of the great things about HTTP is that the URL hierarchy need
>have no resemblance to the file system whatsoever. I can request
><http://mozilla.org/support/mozilla/5.0/navigator/bookmarks/keywords/>,
>and be served a document which actually resides under
>/usr/www/docs/end-user/keywords.html, without having to be exposed to
>any of the details of the file's actual crufty location.
I didn't mention anything about URLs, what you say is trivially true. I do
think though that there is confusion between the presentation framework and
the storage framework in all of this discussion.
> > People sometimes
> > find it harder to explain terms in the network context and so fall
> > back onto the hierarchy.
>
>Right. Given that the URL hierarchy and the filesystem do not have to be
>equal, the URL hierarchy should be designed so that it provides the most
>logical organization for those visiting the site
><http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990321.html>, rather than necessarily
>providing the most logical organization for those who put the documents
>on the site.
Yes, exactly.
Simon
>--
>Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
>Mozilla UI decisions made within 48 hours, or the next one is free
