Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?
Peter J. Kappesser (pjkappes@mailbox.syr.edu)
Fri, 09 Dec 1994 03:56:16 -0500
Recently "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@locke.ccil.org> wrote:
>[quoting rhys@fit.qut.edu.au (Mr Rhys Weatherley)?]
>> The name "Longer-Version-At" is negotiable. It was the first thing that
>> popped into my head. The "<URL:...>" notation is for some of the newer
>> newsreaders that will probably have support for that semi-standard but
>> won't know about "Longer-Version-At".
>
>I was originally going to suggest making it "WWW-Version-At:" until I realized
>I was looking at the wrong abstraction. Instead of thinking of the field as
>a WWW pointer, think of it as a kind of reference that can point either at
>another news article or at an URL or URN. Maybe it should be called
>"Pointer-To:" or "Advertisement-For": :-)
How about "See-Also:", "Related-Article:" or "More-Information:"?
Works for encyclopedias... and new users would probably be more familiar
with such phrases, instead of wondering what a "pointer" is.
--
pjkappes@mailbox.syr.edu (Peter Kappesser)
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
faq-admin@landfield.com
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved