- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:26:47 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 18:13 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> The other nice bit would be if there were nice anchors for the >> definitions, e.g, #def1 > > Do they not already have nice anchors? > > at least some do: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#defn_RDFTerm > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#defn_QueryVariable So they do. I missed that when I did a quick view source check. > And I wonder... why would "definition 15" be better > than "Definition: RDF Term"? I actually would prefer Definition 15: RDF Term However, as long as there's a clear algorithm to get from the text to the anchor, I guess it isn't too bad. Which there seems to be. > I agree it's editorial, and if you can work with the editors > to get it in, very well. > > But I don't see that much motivation > for it, and it'll take some effort to maintain over time. One hopes the document will be fixed at some point :) But yes, the anchors go a long way. Thanks for the pointer. (I prefer numbered definitions because it's a bit easy to shorten.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 01:26:43 UTC