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

Re: Anchor terminology

From: David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:44:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199701300044.TAA06649@csb.bu.edu>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
	From: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak)
	(Quoting me):
	| My personal vote goes to this syncretic list from other people's
	| suggestions:
	| link: bag of pointy bits.
	| pointer: a pointy bit with a suit on (so it looks more formal)
	| referent: Something you get to via a pointy bit

	Even though "referents" sounds exactly like "reference"?

a very good point. I was thinking that pointer referent is clear, but
the plural is confusing. Maybe target is better after all. Link-end
works for me, but I don't think of ropes, since links are now part of
my primary ontology.

    Just so long as it's not anchor!

  -- David
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 1997 19:44:52 UTC

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