https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018
--- Comment #8 from Mike Kaganski <mikekagan...@hotmail.com> --- (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #7) > (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #6) > > is it consistent to call a linked object "embedded"? > Naive user POV. Sure! > > As a naive user, I would just accept that some objects (including "external > links") are called "embedded" in LO, and not think further about it. ... > > To some extent these distinctions are arbitrary* from UI pov (even if not > arbitrary from technical implementation pov). Oh, I would love to quote you to Eyal in tdf#141452, who insists that "What we should do is *simultaneously* become consistent with "dictionary meaning" _and_ self-consistent", and "dictionary meaning is not a "personal preference", it is the preference of essentially everyone". They insist that the terms used in the program have no right to mean something specific, defined in the program: they require that every word used in the term be exact to the *dictionary* meaning. === rant end === I would say, I agree with you; but in this specific case, the distinction between linking and embedding will be really crucial to the usage for some people; and when they will be confused, unsure if the term means that what they thing "linked" is termed "embedded", they would be really lost, and will have all the reasons to complain (unlike Eyal's case mentioned above). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
