Path: utzoo!hoptoad!uunet!littlei!zeus!sdp
From: sdp@zeus.hf.intel.com (Scott Peterson)
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext
Subject: Re: Does this group really exist
Message-ID: <198@zeus.hf.intel.com>
Date: 29 Jan 88 17:50:21 GMT
References: <3468@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <757@brandx.rutgers.edu> <6030@milano.UUCP>
Reply-To: sdp@sdp.hf.intel.com (Scott Peterson)
Organization: OMSO iRMX Software Engineering - Intel Corp. - Hillsboro Or.
Lines: 44

In article <757@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
> [ ... ]  To approach the nitty-gritty details
>of hypertext, we seem to lack two things: a common implementation of hypertext
>and a body of information to contemplate the hypertexting of.  

How about net news?  It's a nasty problem, but it would force us to think
about some issues that might gratly improve a general hypertext system.
Links across machines, links to archives, links to private documents/email,
and version control being just a few.  It would certainly make news more
usable, virtually eliminating messages like "please define
{MOTAS,HASA,ST:TNG}", etc (presumably via links to archives).

[ .. ]
>The second problem, that of discussing what it means to organize information
>via a hypertext approach would appear to be much more difficult because
>it requires finding some set of information that is relatively accessible
>to a large portion of those interested.  Unix man pages would seem ideal
>except for possible copyright problems.  Some of the RFCs being distributed
>in comp.doc would seem promising.  Both of these ideas presume that a common
>ground could be found in interest in computer system documentation.

I don't see a problem in publishing links for the UNIX man pages, just don't
transmit the pages.  To me this seems similar to the practice of posting
diffs to the kernel code to the net.


In article <6030@milano.UUCP> wex@milano.UUCP writes:
>YECCH!  Going via a curses (or for that matter, any character-based
>terminal interface) is like putting training wheels on a 747.  The
>point of a new technology is to move people forward, and bitmapped
>screens are no big deal.  Further, they make it possible to insert
>marks (for link info) between characters, as well as making it easier
>to delineate regions of text.

Graphic interfaces have demonstrated superiority, however there are a lot of
people who don't have them.  If "the point of new technology is to move
people forward ...", then it doesn't make sense to totally ignore the
text-only world.

>I think a hypermedia system needs a bitmapped screen and a pointing
>device (mouse, joystick, touchscreen, etc) in order to have a hope of
>succeeding.

I think I can get by without them (at some reduced level of functionality).