Re: <a footnote="proposal">

Murray Altheim (murray@spyglass.com)
Tue, 15 Oct 1996 17:39:12 -0500


Message-Id: <v02140b01ae89c1922917@[208.203.149.85]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 17:39:12 -0500
To: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
From: murray@spyglass.com (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: <a footnote="proposal">
Cc: marc@ckm.ucsf.edu, www-html@w3.org

>   I had always thought that the REV relationship means that the
>   anchor head in which it occurred was asserting how the anchor tail
>   linked to the head.
>
>I'm happy to be corrected in this, but the terms "head" and "tail" are
>not ones I've ever heard used in this context. You've got me a bit
>puzzled now, because I'm not sure I understand what you're explaining.

I got in a disagreement several two years ago with Dan Connolly over head
and tail. He corrected me, as apparently there is some history in the
lex/parsing terminology (or somewhere) that describes them about *exactly*
the opposite of the way I thought it would work. I can't remember his
reference, but it seems you click on a tail and it locates the head. Yup.
Weird. Don't try this with snakes or mollusks.

From HTML 2.0 (RFC 1866):

    hyperlink
            a relationship between two anchors, called the head and
            the tail. The link goes from the tail to the head. The
            head and tail are also known as destination and source,
            respectively.

I've just avoided the terms entirely, as they give me headache,
particularly since from my way of thinking (which I admit is possibly
flawed) this seems counterintuitive.

Murray

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
    Murray Altheim, Program Manager
    Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
    email: <mailto:murray@spyglass.com>
    http:  <http://www.cambridge.spyglass.com/murray/murray.html>
           "Give a monkey the tools and he'll eventually build a typewriter."