GETTES@PUCC.BITNET (Michael R. Gettes) (02/02/90)
On Thu, 1 Feb 90 14:50:00 LCL Peter Sylvester +49 228 8199645 said: >The :ref. tag was discussed to the death more than a year ago. > >It is a pointer to the "next higher" entry, not more. The >interpretation of what is a member or a site has to be taken from >other tags in these other entries. A simple upward pointer is a >clear concept that allows any kind of hierarchical structure. > > >PS >(This does not mean that I like BITEARN NODES as it is.) I agree. Additionally, I question this SITE level stuff as I have from the beginning. I believe it is only necessary to have the information that says all x nodes belong to member y. The rest is internal organizational structure and should be kept out of the BITEARN NODES file. I realize that this was a requirement set forth by the US portion of the tags working group -- but, I still disagree with it. /mrg
GRZ027@DBNGMD21.BITNET (Peter Sylvester +49 228 8199645) (02/02/90)
The :ref. tag was discussed to the death more than a year ago. It is a pointer to the "next higher" entry, not more. The interpretation of what is a member or a site has to be taken from other tags in these other entries. A simple upward pointer is a clear concept that allows any kind of hierarchical structure. PS (This does not mean that I like BITEARN NODES as it is.)