Re: A serious detail point
> So the overhead is only (name-of-entity + 2) characters. This looks
> like a good solution to me. Henry says it's
> a) obnoxious [ which I'm sure he will agree requires more explication
> to be a useful argument ], and
Of course you're right -- shorthand for irritatingly repetitive.
> b) inefficient in the absence of caching. True, but that would also
> be true if you were to re-use URLs as HT proposes... I really don't
> see an efficiency win either way.
> There's a big problem with remembering the last URL for re-use; the
> problem of maintaining state. If I have a collection of 5,000 such
> URLs, and I need to insert one pointing at something else, then, I'm
> going to have to remember to re-establish context after that pointer.
> Second, if I use an XML-link from *outside* into that list of 5,000
> pointers, if we use the #CURRENT-like method, I have to read them
> all in series to make sure the one I'm pointing at is interpreted
> correctly. If I use the &c;#... method, then I only have to read
> the internal subset before jumping to ID(p324). -T.
I think Peter's criticism was similar, if I understood it. I accept
this as a knock-down rebuttal. Sigh.