links, html, etc.

[dan moylan]

> from: jack coats <jack at coats.org>
> subject: re: html linking

> Some people seem to believe that referring to information with
> links, is synonymous with the inclusion of the information
> into another document by reference, thus implying that they
> may agree with whatever the referring site may be espousing.

how could anyone believe this?  what planet am i on?

> IMHO, this is hogwash (tm).  

similar to hs, right?

> A reference in HTML is just a loosely coupled link, not an
> inclusion of another document.  Just like citeing a book or
> article in foot or endnotes, but links get you more than a
> pointer to a document (which is all foot or end notes do). 

sure, links make it easy to find and review info.  is there
a problem?

> Technically, there is no limitation.  Some mail or news readers
> will not easily follow URL references, so the use should be limited
> depending on the context the document is written in or for.

i guess i'm too naive to understand what anyone is concerned
about.  you get a link.  you file it; you check it out; you trash it;
it's your choice.  i'm grateful for the choice.  is there
something i'm missing?

you guys are way too deep for me.

good night.
ole dan
-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).