Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends

Jon Bosak wrote:
> [Liora Alschuler:]
> | Is there a reason why we can't just call these "direct" and "indirect"
> | links?
> I agree with Liora.  These work very well intuitively and are about as
> apropos as anything else that's been suggested.

They are functional labels and do not indicate function.  So, no, not

Why not use independent link and context link?  They are 
standard and a large segment of the SGML community recognizes them?