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

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

[Steve DeRose]
>I disagree on this one; Len said it pretty well: direct and indirect are
>more natural terms for a quite different distinction, namely whether
>indirection is used in the location specification. "Indirect addressing" is
>so well-established a term that I can't imagine re-assigning it to another
>use, when we need the equivalent of its standard meaning to.
>I'm also with James in disliking 'contextual'; I don't mind 'independent'
>too much; but just 'i' and 'c' doesn't do it for me.

There seems to be no single, descriptive term that encompasses all the
qualities of each type of link so I suggest names that emphasize none of the
qualities (not, then, in-line or direct or independent). I think that
"simple link" and "complex link" would be good, but if shortened into slink
and clink, while they have a nice sound, would conflict with HyTime. 

Maybe "simple" or "basic" as James suggested coupled with "xlink" for the
sophisticated, complex types of linking now possible with XML. I think it
would be easy to present simple links as what you get now with HTML and XML
links as the future made possible by XML applications.


The Word Electric      \I sing the body electric 	I key the word electric\
POB 177, Route 5       /	-- Walt				-- Liora       /
E. Thetford, VT 05043  \             or, as Henry Miller said,                 \
802/785-2623	       /"Anyone can write, but writers can't do anything else."\