Re: footnotes

Patrick Nepper (Neppster@compuserve.com)
Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:49:18 -0500


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:49:18 -0500
From: Patrick Nepper <Neppster@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: footnotes
To: "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <199702171349_MC2-1160-965B@compuserve.com>

Steve wrote:

>Maybe it's just me, but could we come up with a better way
>to refer to footnotes than "footnotes"? It seems as though
>the very idea of a footnote is metaphorically incompatible
>with the ideas behind hypertext. Since many of the suggested
>implementations have nothing to do with a "foot"-style
>reference, and more to do with popup-oriented windows such
>as are found in WinHelp, perhaps a new nomenclature is called
>for? Any ideas? 
>
>Steve

I think it is not so important to come up with a new name for HTML
footnotes, because of the following reason:

The basic idea behind literary footnotes is to give the reader easy and 
fast to find information on a specific expression or matter. The reader
should
not have to leave the document he is just reading to get the explanation he
needs. Right?

So, in this respect I think HTML footnotes are doing a great job and that's
why they
should be called what they are: Footnotes.

HTML footnotes give the user easy and fast to find information without
forcing him to
leave the document he is just viewing.
This is what sets HTML footnotes apart from standard hyperlinks. The user
doesn't have
to link to another document and then come back to the main one.

Although HTML footnotes are implemented as pop-up boxes or something
similar, IMHO
they have the right to be called "footnotes".


Please comment on this. I appreciate any ideas!

Bye,


Patrick Nepper
Web @ccess GbR, Germany
webaccess@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/webaccess
******************************************************
*Web Design ## Web Publishing ## Software Development*
******************************************************