- From: Steven J. DeRose <sjd@ebt.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:48:17 -0500
- 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