On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> At 07:23 PM 2001-08-19 -0700, Tim Gim Yee wrote:
> > Added E<colon> (a literal ":"), to prevent links that look like
> > URLs from being interpreted as such. [...]
>
> Hm. What could look like a URL in a L<thing> construct, but not /really/
> be something you'd want interpreted as a hyperlink to that URL? I'd
> appreciate a good plausable example.
> (And I'll mock a bad and ridiculous example! MOCK!)
Hm... removing L<sec> also removes all my good plausible examples. I
don't even have a bad or ridiculous example for you to mock. :/
> > In addition to =head1..=head4 and =item, one should be able to link
> > to X<topic> sequences. So instead of conflating "sec" and "ident"
> > in L<> sequences to "sec", it is now conflated to "node", which
> > is less descriptive. [...]
>
> I'm tempted to reject this, since I think of X<...> as just for producing
> index points, not hyperlink targets -- and these are very different things.
I wouldn't say they were *very* different things. I think of =headN,
=item, and X<> as all targets for cross-referencing. The difference is
that X<> is only meant to be cross-referenced from an index, not from any
arbitrary place using L<>. And although the ability to cross-reference
something other than =headN and =item would be useful, I have to agree
that overloading X<> to achieve this is not the right thing to do.
--
Tim Gim Yee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
