- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:21:27 -0500
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:12:37 +0100, Matthew Raymond > <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: >> Well, first of all, it doesn't cover cases without hyperlinks: >> >> | <p><q>Blah</q>, said Baz</p> > > I don't think that case is very interesting. Interesting is not the same as common. There is a use case for citations of material that you don't have a hyperlink for. >> As for |source| versus |cite|, I see two problems. First is that the >> attributes are so similar that they could get easily confused. Second is >> that "source" is essentially the long form of "src", which may cause >> even more confusion: > > So name it something else. "linkedfrom" was at one point suggested on IRC. My big issue is not so much which name we pick so much as the fact that |cite| and |attributeName| will have nearly the same purpose, and thus will be easily confused. It seems like a better idea to just use |cite| in all cases and just accept the single character "#" as the price of backwards compatibility. Think about it: spacewise, you'd have to have an attribute with four letters or less just to gain even a tiny savings in file size. The only real argument against reusing |cite| (while keeping it a URL) is for semantic purity. That's the point I thought I was going to have to really fight against. Yet I haven't really heard anyone making that argument. Instead, the complain about a pound sign to the point of even suggesting new attributes just to avoid typing it. Bizarre!
Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 18:21:27 UTC