On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa < felipe.le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Rogan Creswick <cresw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Short, obfsucated, urls may direct you places you don't want to go, > > but I fail to see how that concern applies to HWN: since each url is > > accompanied by a description of its content, that seems to obviate the > > need to see the actual url. In most cases, the text also indicates > > the domain that you will visit, so you can avoid supporting > > stackoverflow with page impressions if you wish (for example). > > It is also possible to borrow half of Slashdot's system and write something > like > > http://goo.gl/G081Q [article.gmane.org] > > Is that a good compromise? > That is a nice in-situ style. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the footnote proponents' main argument is that its lightweight nature causes less of an interruption when reading the text. I think its fair to say that those who RTFA more often would benefit most from in-situ and those who rarely RTFA benefit most from the footnote style. I'm in the former group, but who knows what most people do? David -- David Sankel Sankel Software www.sankelsoftware.com
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
