From: Gaynor M. <gay...@xt...> - 2006-05-25 16:24:13
|
Would Joe Bloggs recognise "Reference" for what we are discussing? I = doubt it. The term used has to be understandable to the majority of users, not = just to the geeks. We might come back to Link at this rate How about 'twin-link' Gaynor ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Robert Oliver=20 To: gal...@li...=20 Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 4:07 AM Subject: Re: [Gallery-devel] create link Daniel Sutcliffe wrote:=20 Bharat Mediratta wrote: shadow, ghost, dupe, replica Anybody else have ideas?=09 =20 How about 'reference'? If these things are just references to the actual image, just like *nix hard links, deleting any one will not remove the image until the last reference is removed ... this is not implied with shortcut, link, etc. Just my $0.02 - I'll go back to lurk mode ;-) /dan Reference is what I was about to suggest after I read Bharat's = description; you beat me to it. Clone and Replica are bad because they imply copies. Again, there is = no copy. It's a pointer back to the original item, with the twist of = having its own meta-data. Pointer came to mind (in fact in the last sentence) but a pointer = seems like a simple arrow that would be unlikely to carry metadata. So = I'm sticking with my present vote for Reference. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date: = 24/05/2006 |