[ruby-talk:00708] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?)

Hi,
> > > In gotoken's idea, "((<...>))" has tree features (means).
> > > (1) Reference to Headlines and Term part of DescList.
> > > (2) Link with URL.
> > > (3) Reference to Bibliography.
> > 
> > Ah! Now I understand. But I would propose to use `((<...>))' only for
> > (2) as <...> at least reminds me on email addresses. To refer to things
> > like (1) or (2), I would propose `(([...]))', as references in written
> > literature are most often denoted with [...] like in your example below
> > ([HF90]).  <--- Gotcha! ;-)
> > 
> > Furthermore I think that references like (2) are other beasts as used
> > in (1) and (2).
> > 
> > Opinions?
> 
> Well... I suppose "((<...>))" has too much feature in gotoken's idea.
> It is good idea that we use different brace for reference to Element of Doc
> and resource of Internet. 
> And do we need reference to bibliography?? I don't think so...
> 
> > [...]
> >  
> > > Well,so this "((<[e-mail]>))" maybe refers Headline like
> > > "== [e-mail]", usage (1).
> > > This is a problem of "((<mail address>))".
> > > But we can regard String which contains "@" and "." and not contains /\s/
> > > as Mail Address probably. Do you think this rule "valid"? and "wished"?
> > 
> > Why restrictive? My proposal perhaps could solve the problem, couldn't
> > it? :-)
> 
> You may be right.

Excuse me, but I ask you one thing.> \cle

I think that if we restrict "((<...>))" within (2) type, but even so
we also have to write "((<mailto:[e-mail]>))" for mail
address, because we write URL inside "((<...>))" for (2).

Did you propose to restrict "((<...>))" only to  mail address?

I suppose using "((<...>))" for URL reference is better.
"((<URL:http://www.netlab.co.jp/ruby/>))" is verbose,
and using "((<...>))" only for mail-address is too restricted.

---
Tosh