W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > February 1997

Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends

From: Liora Alschuler <Liora@The-Word-Electric.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 09:41:48 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 11:49 AM 2/7/97 +0700, James Clark wrote:
>At 11:09 31/01/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>>1.4.f Should we define terms for links that are colocated with their
>> ends,
>> and if so, should we use in-line and out-of-line?
>No.  I find "out-of-line" much less suggestive of the nature of the link
>that the existing HyTime term "independent".
>I think using the term "in-line" is going to be confusing when we get to the
>style stage, since the term "in-line" is used very heavily in formatting (at
>least in DSSSL). I am not very keen on the term "contextual" either.  Since
>the "in-line" links are the kind of links that most people are currently
>used to, may be they could be called something like "simple", "normal" or

I also had much trouble with these terms. 

I believe that what is called here "in-line" and  in HyTime "contextual" are
links that share a number of characteristics:
1. located at the (start) link end
2. uni-directional
3. hardwired 

Choosing 1. -- co-location -- as the basis for naming is confusing for the
reason James cites and also obscures the other characteristics which
identify this type of link. I can't think of a single name that will evoke
all three characteristics and I agree that "simple", "normal" or "basic",
which require definition, are an improvement on "in-line". 

"Out-of-line" sounds like scolding and emphasizes the location of the link
look-up table, which is much less relevant than the fact that there is a
look-up of some sort. 

"Simple" and "independent" are somewhat descriptive and are explainable.

Is there a reason why we can't just call these "direct" and "indirect" links? 

This also keys on just one of the three characteristics of this type of
link, but if 

1. a direct link is always located at its start link end
2. a direct link is always uni-directional
3. a direct link is by definition hardwired

then, I think we should call it a direct link because unlike co-lation or
uni-directionality, it does imply the other two characteristics. 

There may be some very obvious reasons that "direct" and "indirect" are
non-starters, but they sure would speak well to both technical and
non-technical audiences.


The Word Electric      \I sing the body electric 	I key the word electric\
POB 177, Route 5       /	-- Walt				-- Liora       /
E. Thetford, VT 05043  \             or, as Henry Miller said,                 \
802/785-2623	       /"Anyone can write, but writers can't do anything else."\
Received on Friday, 7 February 1997 09:43:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:07 UTC