All this uproar about using Leo without Leo has stimulated some wild thoughts.
Yesterday I watched Tim Berners-Lee's TED talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tim_berners_lee_on_the_next_web.html Not convincing. All these links to "data" are dubious. What happens when the data changes? It's all very well to provide breakable links when you don't care much about the data's accuracy. But what if the accuracy matters? And what about privacy? Inspired by such sleazy links, I have been wondering if Leo could live with breakable clone links. Suppose we dispense with gnx's, and simply use some form of headline searching to resolve clone links. I'm thinking that a headline of the form A (B) would match any headline A, so that we could put stuff in parens without breaking the link. If we could remove gnx's, we could remove most sentinels from external files. If we could remove most sentinels, we could, in effect, use import logic for most external files. So, for example, there might be little difference between @auto-rst x.txt and @thin x.txt. The idea is that sentinels would mostly be hints to the read/import logic. If we think "import" instead of "read" most sentinels might just disappear. Section references do require sentinel pairs, but they are rare. Blue sky stuff. It might be worth a prototype, though. Edward P.S. I still hate the thought of messing with the leoAtFile read code. The write code for @auto-rst should, instead, insure a space at the end of each node, that is, before the ....@-node sentinel. That should be enough, I am guessing. EKR --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
