Re: anchor awareness (was Re: Richer & richer semantics?)
Tim Bray writes:
| It seems obvious from Steve & Eliot's remarks that we might as well adopt
| the Hytime nomenclature and define "anchor" to be something that is
| actually participating in a link relationship. It's easy to explain and
| understand, and is totally unambiguous; definitely in the XML style. (And
| web-head friendly; an HTML anchor *is* in fact an anchor when it's being
| used; the fact that it's not when it's not doesn't really muddy the waters).
Hytime-anchor is one way to view the matter. But to many in our target
audience, <a name=foo> </a> is an anchor whether or not it's pointed to,
and it isn't a Hytime-anchor unless it is pointed to.
So if we say that "anchor" means "what Hytime calls an anchor"
we will probably find it necessary to come up with a term
to describe what "anchor" presently means to many people. It is
useful to have a term for anchors-the-author-provided-in-case-
Now is <a href="http://www.textuality.com/sgml-erb/mprdv.html">foo</a>
- if Tim's server is down?
- if Tim removes the document?
- if the URL were misspelled?
And if byte range 1001--2001 in that document can be addressed, is that
byte range (not distinguished by anything in the document itself) an
(I'm just asking; these are things that will have to be explained.)
Terry Allen Fujitsu Software Corp. email@example.com
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
which we soon find outselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html