I love it when you vent, Ron. :)
ron minnich wrote:
I don't agree. You don't need links as long as you have google or its competitors or successors. But that's just me, no need to continue this,
Let's agree to disagree. Direct links are, well, direct; eliminating an undesirable extra search step.
I tend to agree with you for generic information such as, say, "mashed potato recipe" where there is actual value in having multiple variations and being able to choose the one you like today.
But for specific information, such as a register description PDF or a programming guide for a given chip, that variation is actually the last thing you want. ;) (Not that that matters though!)
I think that broken links are a temporary problem in these early days of digital storage, and that it is important not to lose the important habit of including specific references.
//Peter
2017-08-17 13:49 GMT+02:00 Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se:
Let's agree to disagree. Direct links are, well, direct; eliminating an undesirable extra search step.
Science today uses doi numbers/links, which plan for moves by addint indirection.
I think that broken links are a temporary problem in these early days of digital storage
Cue Ted Nelson (http://www.xanadu.net/)
Patrick