Furthermore, when authors make reference to other works — bibliographies, citations, quotes, and allusions — those writers are creating hypertext too. After all, hypertext is text that has been augmented, expanded, linked to other texts somewhere else in the world, texts that are not necessarily by the same author. And when we think about citations or bibliographies in business and academic writing, aren't we really thinking about hypertext in the sense of links to other texts — texts that are the sources or references for the present text?

In law, for example, a citation to another legal document is a fundamental element in the language of the law. Cases are made by applying relevant citations and precedents to current situations in a logical and timely way. In a real way, therefore, legal documents are hypertexts — texts whose real value lies in part in their ability to link to other texts (such as earlier legal decisions and court cases).

The major difference is that the computer makes access to other documents easy — a click of the mouse away. For certain, however, the conventional legal document is a hypertext document too. It is simply not as convenient or quick in allowing us to retrieve the related information.

Consider essays and literature too. When authors of essays or poems or novels make allusions, say references to the name of a rose or to the garden of Eden, for example, aren't they also creating hypertext in the sense that they are making links to other texts somewhere else in the world? Those references are indeed hypertextual, and they bind the current text to other texts, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and the Bible in these examples.

Thus, I suggest that there is no great divide between the past and the future when it comes to literacy and writing. Even hypertext, as novel as it seems, has its origins in the literacy (and technology) of the past.