At 11:36 AM 5/1/95, Bert Bos wrote:
>Amazing how fast things can change on this list! Exactly a week ago,
>in the midst of a much longer document ("More comments on HTML 3.0"),
>I repeated something I had said earlier, namely that I didn't see what
>REV could add that REL couldn't express.
>That short line got picked up, but nobody seemd to agree with me. But
>suddenly everything has changed, REL is going to be standardized in an
>HTML-independent way, and REV is going to be dropped. Nice work!
I still think we should have both REV and REL, even if our standardization
results in saying some relations are the exact inverses of each other.
Albert Lunde [log in to unmask]