Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends
At 6:38 PM 2/9/97, email@example.com wrote:
>David Durand <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Liam Quin <email@example.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
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...
I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand firstname.lastname@example.org \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________