- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:10:13 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > 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. How about doing this in the separated-out defns page? Then the numbers can be autogenerated (the page is made with XSLT from rq23). Numbers can be added to rq23 but unless it is very late in the process, they just end up broken (e.g. UC&R 3.8). Named anchors don't have this problem/overhead. Andy
Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 11:10:33 UTC