Re: Anchor terminology
At 11:30 AM 1/28/97, Joe English wrote:
>I find it puzzling that the XHL draft has replaced
>the HyTime terminology "contextual link" and "independent
>link" -- about which to my knowledge nobody has complained --
>in favor of the _de novo_ "inline link" and "out-of-line link",
>yet it retains the terms "anchor" and "link end",
>which nobody seems to like.
I don't have a problem with the terms in-line and out-of-line, per se, as
these terms are pretty self-explanatory, but I agree that we retained the
least attractive of the terms we have floated.
I think we should avoid using the term anchor at all, as it has several
technically distinct meanings in different communities. This is true to
some extent of "link" as well, but people seem not confused by this,
probably because it's _so_ common the people expect each system to have its
own definition. That's the most important thing.
My personal vote goes to this syncretic list from other people's suggestions:
link: bag of pointy bits.
pointer: a pointy bit with a suit on (so it looks more formal)
referent: Something you get to via a pointy bit
link type: What kind of a link you have (in semantic or operational terms)
pointer role: What role does this particular pointer play in this link --
the label on an item in the bag.
pointer type: The kind of addressing used by pointer to point at something
else. Alternatively described: the notation used to write down the address
a pointer uses to point at things.
As for link topologies, I could happily got back to clink and ilink, and
no-one here ever objected to those terms, but for the uninitiated, the
current terms may be more descriptive.
I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand email@example.com \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________