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

At 6:38 PM 2/9/97, lee@sq.com wrote:
>David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu> wrote:
>> Liam Quin <lee@sq.com> wrote:
>>> I have just posted to suggest splitting the various concepts out
>>> and having 3 names -- internal/external, implicit end, and participating.
>> not _exactly right_ (but close):
>> You don't need the distinction between participating and implicit as far as
>> I can tell. The only cases where implicit links have been proposed are
>> those where the link is participating.
>So I hereby propose external annotations, which are participating and
>external, and implicitly all point to the same XML file.

Nice. Do we need these enough to need to explain 3 distinctions instead of
two? You can keep the destination file explicit, without duplication by
using entities

   Personally I think implicit links to anything but the markup that
declares a link are completely evil, as everyone has to understand the
"implication" for them to be useful.

   Of course, if you're just funnin' me for having insufficient link-type
imagination, there's no reason to take this note seriously...

   -- David

I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________