@targetEnd predates the extended pointer syntax -- it was on <note> I
think even in P2, and has been retained for backwards compatability.
The Birnbaum Doctrine tells us that we should strive not to introduce
further instances of things we might now regret, but not needlessly
remove existing ones.
Dot Porter wrote:
> Thanks Peter, and Lou. Of course we can use the range() pointer
> scheme, but then <note> could as well. Is there any purpose to
> @targetEnd, above and beyond what is offered by range()? And if there
> is, does it not apply to <ref> as well?
> It's the inconsistency that bothers me. If @targetEnd is allowed on
> <note>, why not on <ref> as well? And if we are going to say that
> <ref> doesn't need @targetEnd because we can just use range(), then
> why not recommend this method for <note> as well and do away with
> @targetEnd altogether?
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dot Porter wrote:
>>> In the markup for the Confessio project, Franz Fischer and I have run
>>> into an instance where it would be very useful to have @targetEnd
>>> allowed on <ref>. It is allowed on <note>, and not on <ref>, although
>>> it would seem that with either element one might wish to point to any
>>> given string of words. In the Confessio, we have extensive notes that
>>> point to large sections of text, and within those notes, references
>>> pointing to smaller phrases within that section ("246,7,2-5"). Every
>>> word will be marked with a unique id, and we don't want to mark those
>>> smaller phrases separately (as they may overlap with one another).
>>> We can have multiple targets on @target, but that is unwieldy when
>>> dealing with strings of even five or more words. Allowing @targetEnd
>>> on <ref> would enable us to point to just the first and last words in
>>> a string.
>>> I'm planning to put this in as a feature requested, but wanted to
>>> bring it up on list in case there are problems with this that we've
>>> Dot (and Franz)
>> You could also use the range() pointer scheme, of course (see
>> Something like <ref target="#range( #w21, #w45)">words 21 to 45
>> inclusive</ref> I think.
>> As noted already on this list, it's not clear what software's going to
>> actually implement it of course, but then that applies to @targetEnd as