John Middlemas	Fil Mackay
www-html@w3.org		John Middlemas HyperG
From: Fil Mackay <fil@mpce.mq.edu.au> To: "'John Middlemas'" <john@eco.powernet.co.uk> Cc: "'Hyper-Theory'" <hyper-theory@math.byu.edu> Subject: RE: Web neurons Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:16:46 +-1000 X-UIDL: 832824033.002 > This could be due to our historic use of paper as a medium. Hypertext > has shown that linearity doesn't pay. Why can't we now apply the same > principle to computer Languages? I'd like to challenge this notion of the relationship between the traditional, supposedly 'linear' book medium, and computer-based hypertext. Does anyone really believe that books are linear? Why is it, then, that a text file with all the characters contained in a novel isn't as usable as the book itself? The reason is, that the book has hyper-elements which are stripped when coverted to an ASCII stream. When we read a book we are doing a lot more than simply reading it word-by-word, surely. We are moving back and forward, flipping through pages - reading parts of interest. Pages help us navigate. Hypertext has shown that linearity doesn't pay, because computer-based hypertext (in most cases) is more linear than the book equivalent! We've stripped so much navigation away (the natural page interface) and put very little in its place to assist users. Paper isn't a continuous medium - we don't use scrolls (much, anyway). Computer file are about is linear as you can get. >>>In other words Web pages would become like the subroutines, procedures, or >>>functions of other common languages, but with the important difference that >>>there would be no compulsory return to the source/caller. This is only an >>>outline proposal. >>You're really creating a new language.. is HTML the best place to do this? >I don't really want to use HTML but it is there and probably will be for a >long while. What you're proposing is not HTML. HTML is about delivering pages of content for presentation. Why don't you make something new.. a document format which is appropriate to your use. You've ditched HTML anyway, because nobody is going to be able to render your HTML-variant anyway! >>>FIRE passes the target page URL, and inputs, to the target server or >>>calling machine/browser if the target page is local. The browser or server >>>must now also interpret the target page and may not even pass it back to the >>>caller. >>Sounds like structured programming in HTML? Why not use Java..? >I don't believe in structured programming. Sounds like a contradiction in terms :-) >All that is happening is that >inputs are being passed from one place to another, there is no compulsory >return as in standard languages. In fact it is more like a "GOTO" than >anything structured. The structure is in the Web itself. Sort of like a petri-net? >I don't know much about Java but I don't believe it operates within a Web >page which is the important point (I haven't got Windows 95 or NT). Uhh.. Java operates within web-pages (applets) and as stand-alone applications (in their own window). What environment do you run on? >>Don't tell me you actually LIKE HTML? :) >Hmmm.. I don't hate it like I do C and BASIC. It's simple to produce a quick >page or two. I wouldn't call it a language because it doesn't process - yet. All a language is, is a set of symbols which are animated by some other process (eg. Assembler is animated by a CPU). HTML (or C or BASIC) don't actually process.. they afford the ability, but of differing types. >>The scenario you are painting IMHO would be more appropriate to distributed >>Java, where the tools are already there (or will be), and are easy to use >Why complicate by adding another language when all that is needed is some >modification to HTML. Integration is better than fragmentation. Sometimes it's better to wipe the slate clean and use something better. Why buy a petrol-powered car, when I have a perfectly good horse? :) >>>Very short and simple use of IF, ELSE etc is recommended. The >>>architecture of the Web page links should control the main logic, i.e. like >>>a flow chart. >>Representing navigation in IF THEN/ELSE structures are dangerous. Why not >>just structure them simply as navigation, then infer the "IF THEN" from >>navigation. >Yes, I don't like IF, ELSE either. I don't understand what you mean about >"infer from navigation" - sounds interesting, please enlighten! I said infer the IF THEN from the structure.. not infer from navigation. >>I think you're about to be bombarded with Hyper-G/Wave people telling you >>that it does do this mapping and zooming stuff. I'll leave this to them >>cause they know more.. :) >What is "Hyper-G/Wave"? Actually the above point of mine is not really >central, more of an editing facility, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. It's a more advanced / adventurous WWW replacement - very interesting. Look it up on a search engine - there are quite a few sites out there, and they have a WWW interface so you can check it out. >>>Why bother with over complex and fragmented languages like C, java >>>etc when the structure of the Web itself can handle the job >>>in a simpler and better way; not to mention the parallel and >>>distributed aspects. >>To use Java you don't have to program it. Possibly one application would be >>to build structures as you describe, but there will always be a need for a >>scripting language, if only to do specialised atomic tasks (eg. Encrytption). >Yes but they could be called and controlled by HTML extensions. I would not >call my idea an application, it is more like an operating system. With this ongoing browser/OS debate, I am convinced that "application" and "operating system" are completely relative. Everything below you (no matter who 'you' are) is the OS, and everything above you is an application. I think it's quite natural you think it is an OS, but that dosen't mean that it really is. (or more correctly.. other people will agree). >>I think a Java application would handle the distributed and parallel >>aspects of your ideas much nicer. That's not to say that the actual CONTENT >>needs to be written in Java - possibly a meta-format that Java would then >>render. >You know much more about Java than me. I really don't want to get Win 95... It originated on the *NIX platforms, and is now on the Mac (runtime and SDK). >>>For example in writing a database application each page could be one data >>>item of the database e.g "Smith". The way the pages were linked would >>>determine the structure of the database and access to it.. There would be a >>>lot of very small pages using the power of the links! >>I think URL's are too expensive for that :) >I know it's a bit radical but the system can also be used on your local >machine without referring to external URL's. Aren't they planning to >dramatically increase the number of possible URL's soon. No, we already have an infinite number of URL's. All a URL is, is a string of characters.. relatively infinite. >Something like >there will be 10 million URL's available per sq metrer? I think you're referring to IP addresses, when TCP/IP gets upgraded. >Over the next decade >or so access speeds must surely increase hugely say with cable modems etc. I think the resource issues are more relevant to the server. At the moment, every web page is stored as a file. Each file takes up a minimum of 16k of space, no matter how little it is. Sounds like you are planning on a LOT of pages :) >>Seriously, web 'pages' were designed to be just that - pages of >>text/content. Linear and all that stuff. >Surely Web pages are non-linear because they have hyper-links. A 'page' is linear. If the web content wasn't linear, then we'd have a network of symbols delivered to our browser with no 'start' and no 'finish'. Instead we have chosen to use a SGML-derivative which describes the content from start to end. Our whole basis for this WWW thing has been linear. Just because we have 'warp holes' placed within to the content (anchors) which takes us to goodness-knows-where (links), does not make the medium non-linear (IMHO anyway). My opinion is that a non-linear medium has a lot more than the ability to move around linear spaces. I think the actual _content_ should be represented in a non-linear form. >>If you want to hack it to do more sophisticated stuff (like animation, >>tables etc.) then you can. If you want to completely change your philosophy >>and say that URL's (URI's.. whatever) are now 'objects', you're really >>stretching it. >Surely all ideas should be considered on their merit alone rather that how >far they stretch from the norm. What about E=MC^2 I don't think I have explained myself properly.. I see using HTML to represent content in the manner you are describing, as hacking Newtonian physics to describe relativity. What you're better off doing is throwing it out, and going with E=MC^2. My point is, don't use HTML for the hell of it - only where appropriate. >The FIRE command and inputs can be appended to a standard URL request. If >there is no FIRE command then the target page is returned by the server as >normal therefore it should be backwards compatible. If there is a FIRE >command then the server behaves very differently. How is the document 'returned'? What is the difference between a FIRE and non-FIRE request? (in terms of what actually gets returned) >>> Hypertext works because it mimics the hyper-dimensional linking in >>>the brain. Its sucess is not to do with "text". After all you can link from >>>jpg's too. But the brain also "processes" inside the neurons and this is not >>>mimiced on the Web. If we think of a neuron as a Web page then processing >>>needs adding within the page. A rough first shot at this has been taken >>>above. >>Why not use a neural net model to represent content/the web? Then you could >>build all these structures? >I don't know how to. Why not use a simple table: ID, Description, FromID, ToID This table is able to model a neural network. Each entry is a node in the network, and can potentially be a link (using FromID, ToID). >>Surely HTML is not a good environment to build nets. The only reason you'd >>use HTML is to be 'in' with the current web crowd. If you put nets up there >>in HTML, there's no point - cause nobody will be able to render them :). >By render do you mean program? Rendering is the process of translation and augmentation. It's converting a 3D world description into a ray-traced graphic, and conversion of a HTML file into a screen presentation. >>>The brain has been under development for X billion years >>And it's still not perfect.. I'm waiting to download the release version :) >Are there some bugs in your current model? Certainly is.. I make mistaces all the time :) (but please, don't give up on me.. the release will be out RSN) >I wouldn't call HTML a language because it isn't (yet) active. A language is a language even before a compiler is written for it. >>Hope I didn't offend too much. I only meant to offend a little. :) >Only the bit about the Web crowd, but why do you like to offend at all? Because offending (a little) makes people stand up and say what they really think. It brings out the real issues.. sorry if others don't agree. Later..