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

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

From: Steven J. DeRose <sjd@ebt.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:48:17 -0500
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970210224817.00d14f04@pop>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 04:51 PM 02/07/97 -0800, Jon Bosak wrote:
>[Liora Alschuler:]
>
>| Is there a reason why we can't just call these "direct" and "indirect"
>| links?
>
>I agree with Liora.  These work very well intuitively and are about as
>apropos as anything else that's been suggested.

I disagree on this one; Len said it pretty well: direct and indirect are
more natural terms for a quite different distinction, namely whether
indirection is used in the location specification. "Indirect addressing" is
so well-established a term that I can't imagine re-assigning it to another
use, when we need the equivalent of its standard meaning to.

I'm also with James in disliking 'contextual'; I don't mind 'independent'
too much; but just 'i' and 'c' doesn't do it for me.


S
Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 17:50:56 UTC

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