[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Anchor terminology



>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."