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

Re: Anchor terminology

From: Murray Altheim <murray@spyglass.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:14:42 -0400
Message-Id: <v02140b04af170dd80ad4@[]>
To: cbullard@hiwaay.net
Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
>David Durand wrote:
>>         Even though "referents" sounds exactly like "reference"?
>>         Jon
>> 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!

May I point out that one of the problems I've commonly seen in HTML is that
people have a tough time understanding that HTML anchors may contain both a
NAME and an HREF, so they may be both a referent/link and a
reference/target. Assuming that XML links will be at least as functional,
calling one end of a pointy thing a target may be a limiting statement, or
require some kind of qualifier.

Out of town for three days and boy you guys have been busy...


    Murray Altheim, Program Manager
    Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
    email: <mailto:murray@spyglass.com>
    http:  <http://www.cm.spyglass.com/murray/murray.html>
           "Give a monkey the tools and he'll eventually build a typewriter."
Received on Thursday, 30 January 1997 23:10:15 UTC

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