On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:34:22PM -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote: > Cc: [email protected] ... trying to segue the discussion into that list.
To that same end, I've removed p5p from this reply. > It's legal and encouraged for the same index term to reference multiple > points in the broader text. Indexes have always done this. This example > from _TeXbook_ links "indexes" to four anchors in the book: > > indexes, 261-263, 392-394, 423-425, 481 > > Unfortunately hypertext doesn't support ambiguous link targets. New syntax > for anchors doesn't solve this problem. It only pushes renderer-specific > concerns into POD where they don't belong. > > X<foo> can and should become an anchor wherever it's present. L<foo> can and > should link to ALL of them. The anchors' actual names are unimportant > implementation details, as long as X<> and L<> do the right things. > > When we read books, we resolve ambiguous references by visiting the index and > branching. We often take multiple branches until our curiosities are > satisfied. And we benefit from incidental, serendipitous context while we're > there. > > The obvious solution to ambiguous L<foo> is to emulate books. If we know > L<foo> is ambiguous, then we already have a list of link targets. Send the > reader to that list, and let them branch out from there. > > A sufficiently advanced renderer could pop up a menu of options on link > click, but again, people writing POD shouldn't need new syntax to make it > happen. > I can definitely see the usefulness of a link that leads to all the indexed entries for a particular term. However, I'm not convinced this should replace the current behavior for L<>. There's a difference between something that IS foo, and something that is RELATED TO foo. Sometimes when using an index I want to follow the multiple branches, but other times I just want the main entry. Right now, L<> links to the main entry for a term (specifically, in cases where X<> is added to the main entry as a convenient link target, as well as to related entries). Under your proposal, it would link to all the entries for a term. These are both useful; I just hesitate to add the latter at the cost of the former. Maybe there's a good way to allow both behaviors? Ronald
