On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Nate H. wrote: > > > > > Many people have tried this kind of thing in the past, with little > > > success. As far as I can tell, there is little interest from Web > > > authors in describing their site map (which is more a graph than a > > > tree, and which is getting all the more dynamic with things like > > > wikis). > > > > Well, it's not necessary to describe the complete graph. Not many > > authors would want it. > > Any chance adopting google's sitemap format would be enough? If so then > authors might be compelled to create the sitemap for google's benefit > and then repeat the benefits of the what spec's usage as well.
I'm not sure Google's sitemaps are really what Alexey was intending here. (Google's sitemaps are more a list of URIs than a map.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
