Xref: utzoo alt.hypertext:697 comp.text:7731 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!ogicse!emory!stiatl!srchtec!glushko From: glushko@srchtec.UUCP (Bob Glushko) Newsgroups: alt.hypertext,comp.text Subject: Re: Designing Online Documents Summary: storing links Message-ID: <369@srchtec.UUCP> Date: 8 Dec 90 15:11:56 GMT References: <5514@newton.praxis.co.uk> Followup-To: alt.hypertext Organization: search technology, inc - Norcross, GA Lines: 33 In article , brennan@rtp.dg.com (Dave Brennan) writes: > > The problem is how to store links separately. For example, file > position won't necessarily work, because when the document is updated some > items will surely move. Got any good ideas? > Don't get seduced into thinking that you have to have bit-level precision in anchoring your links. In a man page, for example, links are likely to be made to a particular sub-section (EXAMPLES, BUGS,...) or to a special word like another command name or file name. In the first case, you can probably safely assume that any revised man page is still going to have all of the sub-sections in it; in the second case, the special file names are likewise still going to be there. So this means you can define the link to "the EXAMPLES heading" "the first occurrence of /x/y/file.c after the EXAMPLES heading" either of which are straightforward to define in a way that is robust with respect to edits of the man page. The moral of the story is: If writers don't make precise cross references in print, why do we think they have to be able to make precise cross references in hypertext? Links to a sub-section of a man page seem pretty precise to me. (Think back to all those term papers you wrote when you cited articles you didn't even find in the library. Who are you kidding, trying to make links stick to particular words?) bob "hypertext engineering" glushko search technology 4725 peachtree corners circle, suite 200 norcross, ga 30092 (404) 441-1457