Re: Encyclopedia Test Pages

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, kochte, whose pseudonyms we love really, wrote:

> Thomas Anderson writes:
> 
> > - link-type distinction (didtinguish between links within the pedia
and
> > links to external sites; perhaps include the latter in a
'references'
> > section in the document rather than inline in the text)
> 
> By external sites you mean documentation or webpages hosted elsewhere?

i mean documents which are not part of the encyclopedia itself; by "part
of the encyclopedia itself", i mean stuff that has not been through the
process (organising, proofreading, formatting, peer review), but which
is
still relevant.

f'r instance, the entry on the Alarishi might have a link to
laserlight's
own site, where extra or more up-to-date material might be found.
external
links might also point to resources that are not and will never be part
of
the encyclopedia, but which are nonetheless relevant. i can't think of
anything in particular just now, but we might need them.

the physical location of such documents is irrelevant, and since the
'cyc
will now be hosted in one place (iirc), all internal links are local to
that server anyway. whilst it is true that external links will either be
to another server or to jerry han's pages on canoe (assuming that's
where
it gets hosted), this follows from the definition rather than being part
of the definition.

amazing: it took me three paragraphs to express what any normal person
could do in a line or two. i need help. or i could write textbooks.

> Do you think this is really necessary? And if so, what reasoning do
> you have for it?

it's to let people know that this is a different resource, not part of
the
encyclopedia, and that by following the link they are leaving the
encyclopedia. it stiffens the defnitions of the 'edges' of the work.
it's
a warning that what they are travelling to does not come with the same
gold-edged certificate of quality (i'm assuming lofty goals for the work

here ...).

> As to the topic of backgrounds on pages, I'm for the default grey
> background.

i have to say that i am now converted to this. we should make no
explicit
reference to background colours (or text colour, or link colours) in the
documents. many people will get 'mosaic gray', but if anyone really
cares,
they can override their browser defaults (i have done so, to get white
backgrounds). if we later decide to add colour, based on graphic design,
layout policy, ergonomics or whatever, we can either use stylesheets or
go
through and change all the pages - this is a trivial job for a perl
script.

Tom