Taxonomy of links
July 13, 2003 10:56 AM Subscribe
Fascinating, but I think one of the main points of the article -- that users don't want to pick a type for a link -- may be the best one. No hard taxonomy is going to be sufficient for the breadth of what's on the web, so it's almost better to leave the semanticity of the link out, and the link means "more info here" essentially. It's almost better, anyway. I think they were on the right track moving towards and extensible link type. In fact, an arbitrary link type might be good.
Of course, then you'd one problem that's already implicitly associated with any kind of semantic notation of content, and that's that there will always be a set of people for whom it's not in their best interest (percieved, at least) to apply correct semantics to their markup. I speak of search-engine spammers.
posted by namespan at 11:31 AM on July 13, 2003
Of course, then you'd one problem that's already implicitly associated with any kind of semantic notation of content, and that's that there will always be a set of people for whom it's not in their best interest (percieved, at least) to apply correct semantics to their markup. I speak of search-engine spammers.
posted by namespan at 11:31 AM on July 13, 2003
« Older Pixeltees | Because they don't take American Express Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:57 AM on July 13, 2003