>David Durand wrote: > >> Even though "referents" sounds exactly like "reference"? >> >> Jon > >> a very good point. I was thinking that pointer referent is clear, but >> the plural is confusing. Maybe target is better after all. Link-end >> works for me, but I don't think of ropes, since links are now part of >> my primary ontology. >> >> Just so long as it's not anchor! > >Target. May I point out that one of the problems I've commonly seen in HTML is that people have a tough time understanding that HTML anchors may contain both a NAME and an HREF, so they may be both a referent/link and a reference/target. Assuming that XML links will be at least as functional, calling one end of a pointy thing a target may be a limiting statement, or require some kind of qualifier. Out of town for three days and boy you guys have been busy... Murray ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Murray Altheim, Program Manager Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts email: <mailto:murray@spyglass.com> http: <http://www.cm.spyglass.com/murray/murray.html> "Give a monkey the tools and he'll eventually build a typewriter."Received on Thursday, 30 January 1997 23:10:15 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:58 EDT