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

Re: Anchor terminology

From: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:44:25 -0800
Message-Id: <199701281644.IAA23503@boethius.eng.sun.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
CC: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM
[Tim Bray:]

| Jon's proposal seems OK, except for I find the term "end-spec"
| horribly unaesthetic.

I do, too.  I was just trying to be doggedly accurate.

| How about "link", "pointer", and "target".  Ropes are really a lousy
| metaphor, and "end" is really not descriptive of what a pointy bit
| does.  Also, given the realities of the web, "pointer" and "target"
| are quite accurate.

I would like to use "pointer".  (In fact, I thought after I sent the
first message, "Why not pointer?  That's the word I keep using in my
head.")  But "target" is too directional.  "Pointing at link ends" is
one thing; "traversing a link from one target to another" is just not
English, not even technical English.  Just as we will call pointers
"pointers" whenever we're not making a special effort, we will call
link ends "link ends".  (The current draft is forced to use the term
"endpoints" and then has to apologize for it.)

I don't have the problem that Peter Flynn does with "traversal".  It's
a technical term for a technical thing, and it does no violence to the

"This link has three ends, which are referenced by these three
pointers.  When you click on the end over here, you are presented a
menu that allows you to choose which of the other two ends the link
will traverse to."

Works for me.

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 1997 11:45:21 UTC

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