so does this mean that we are going to standardize on a single 'index.html,index.rtf,index.tex (yech)' name, and if you want to use the same name as a folder you can make a link?
if I'm understanding you right, I'm for it, and I'll post that I am... I just want to make sure I am on the right track...
:-)
Begin forwarded message:
From: khare@xent.caltech.edu (Rohit Khare)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 13:32:23 -0800
Message-Id: <199501262132.NAA20884@xent.caltech.edu>
To: webstep@mail.xent.caltech.edu
Subject: Re: FORMAT-SPEC: .htmld
Reply-To: khare@caltech.edu
> I disagree w/the implicit rule of "one html per document". Instead, shouldn't it be one central, focus, index html per document w/any number of supporting html?
>
> For example, say I was doing a page of indexed goo -- a table of contents, for example -- the TOC would be the index or focus html document within the htmld, and all the support or content html would be contained in seperate html files within the htmld wrapper.
>
> b.bum
>
I agree with Bill. I think that the last two posts are onto something: We define a fixed index.html that must be able to reach or account for every resource in the htmd. Then, you can have "multiresolution" HTML output for outline sections (Concurrence) and multiple formats (Page's possible Ascii and graphics optimized pages). And this principle neatly settles the issue of Dan's model: name.html is a link to index.html.
Rohit