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

.
>>[Liora Alschuler:]
>>
>>| Is there a reason why we can't just call these "direct" and "indirect"
>>| links?
>>
[Jon Bosak]
>>I agree with Liora.  These work very well intuitively and are about as
>>apropos as anything else that's been suggested.

[Steve DeRose]
>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.
>

There seems to be no single, descriptive term that encompasses all the
qualities of each type of link so I suggest names that emphasize none of the
qualities (not, then, in-line or direct or independent). I think that
"simple link" and "complex link" would be good, but if shortened into slink
and clink, while they have a nice sound, would conflict with HyTime. 

Maybe "simple" or "basic" as James suggested coupled with "xlink" for the
sophisticated, complex types of linking now possible with XML. I think it
would be easy to present simple links as what you get now with HTML and XML
links as the future made possible by XML applications.

Liora




                       /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
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."\
		       \\\\\\\\\\\\liora@the-word-electric.com\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 1997 10:06:59 UTC