
The original proposal of the WWW, HTMLized - zolotarev
https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html
======
woodruffw
> The original document file (I think - I can't test it)

Interestingly, I can open this just fine in LibreOffice 5. The alignment is
slightly off, but the graphics appear just fine.

~~~
superphunthyme
It appears to be a "MacWrite II document" according to
[http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx](http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx)

~~~
woodruffw
Thanks for the link! I had tried running `file` on it, with no success ;)

~~~
cheiVia0
It is definitely not MacWrite since it doesn't conform to the format:

[http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/MacWrite](http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/MacWrite)

Looks like it is actually Word for Mac:

[https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html](https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html)

------
hossbeast
Quoting,

"Keywords are a common method of accessing data for which one does not have
the exact coordinates. The usual problem with keywords, however, is that two
people never chose the same keywords. The keywords then become useful only to
people who already know the application well."

Interesting that some problems have been known for so long, with no solution
in sight.

The whole article is super interesting in the context of everything the author
did not yet know

~~~
dredmorbius
One solution for this comes from the field of librarianship -- the use of
standard ontologies for classifying information. The two most widely used are
the Dewey Decimal system (proprietary) and the Library of Congress Catalog
Classification System (nonproprietary). I've seen arguments that Dewey is more
logically consistent, but the LCCCS's open nature lends it a strong advantage.

Even such ontologies aren't entirely stable -- they change over time, and as
with other bits of knowledge, reflect cultural fads and fashions. But I've
been recommending to several systems (Pocket, Ello, blogging platforms) that a
classification / tagging system based on these might actually be a fairly
reasonable start, if only in that there's a very large, mostly-well-considered
basis to start from.

------
tudorw
Because any excuse to post Mr Adams work is a good excuse,
[https://vimeo.com/72501076](https://vimeo.com/72501076)

~~~
igravious
[9m05s in: pause]

Oh. My. God.

How did I not know about this? I have read everything Mr. Adams has published
(I believe). Played a couple of his games. Listened to his radio output.
Watched _that_ movie. But I did not know about this.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

I'm actually getting a bit emotional here. Bonus is that I'm super interested
in the evolution of text from codex to semantic web (and beyond?) so both the
purveyor of the content and the content itself interest me. That Ted Nelson, I
tells ya.

Totally unrelated. One thing that the web could have had was _typed_ links. A
number of people have made this observation but not many. The idea is built
into the assumptions that gave birth to hypertext but the idea was never
implemented. See here, for instance:
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22907/abstrac...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22907/abstract)

~~~
tudorw
Thank you for your thank you, so glad I could share this to someone like you,
Ted, indeed, nuff said...

------
agumonkey
Intersting how broad it was, some bits of "semantic web" in place. And at the
same time, as described here, it's mostly multi user hypercard.

~~~
nathancahill
> multi user hypercard

sign me the fuck up

------
duncan_bayne
They should lock this content behind some EME-compatible DRM, so we can see
how things have changed over the years.

------
js2
Posted here because it's the topic of the Season 3 finale of Halt and Catch
Fire?

