[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Use of meaningful (and probably non-verbal) hyperlinks

Hash: SHA1


I raised an issue last week-end, while the DPN was already freezed, and
got only one person on my "side", so I reverted my changes [287]. In
fact, I think everybody focused on the "verb" part, and my poorly chosen
example from W3C, so I'll try to make myself clearer in order to
eventually evolve in another (hopefully better) way to link stuff from
the web-based DPN (I think that the mail edition is better since there
are no true hyperlinks).


For example (I picked a short and easy one), in the just published DPN,
we have :

"Aurélien Jarno *reported* a bit about Debian's switch from GLIBC to

I think that the hyperlink on *reported* is meaningless, and misguiding
(why should I follow a link just called "reported", am I going to be
reported somewhere?).

The purpose of Aurélien's report is about the *Debian's switch from
GLIBC to EGLIBC*, or at least the *switch from GLIBC to EGLIBC*, so I
really believe that the hyperlink should rather be on this phrase.

Eventually, in some not so easy cases, I think that linking on the name
of the "reporter" (here *Aurélien Jarno*), should be far more meaningful
that the usual past tense verb "reported" (usually "announced"), since
the hyperlink will link to something about this person.

I'm well aware that the meaning of the total sentence is the best way to
have a clue about what the hyperlink is about, but I sincerely believe
that the hyperlink itself should better be meaningful if possible.



P.-S.: Alexander proposed to eventually raised this sort of discussion
to other more general lists, I think it could be fine, but why not
starting around here, and if we have a consensus, try to raised the
discussion to debian-www for example. Some people answered to the
previous thread that was crossed-linked with debian-l10n-english, maybe
we could do it again for this one in order to gather more opinion too.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: