[WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?

[Ray Saintonge]

FT2 wrote:
> PS -- While we're on the subject of refs and URLs, one other wish I'll throw
> in the ring - that ref's can at a very basic level, cite other named refs as
> sources. A markup like this: <reflink name="blah" />, that renders anywhere
> as "[note X]". The reason's this: Suppose you have multiple cites of the
> same source - say cite#1 is page 17 of a source, cite 2 is page 27, cite 3
> is page 45, etc, or different uses of the same source need different
> comments in the note. Then you have to repeat the actual source detail in
> each cite, completely. 
>
> What I'd like is to be able to do something really basic like this:
>
> Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<ref name="doe">John
> Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press.</ref> Widget
> manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<ref>See <reflink
> name="doe" /> page 97.</ref> and 47% of employment of adults.<ref>According
> to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe<reflink
> name="doe" /> 47%</ref> ....
>
> And have it render:
>
> Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<sup>[1]</sup> Widget
> manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<sup>[2]</sup> and 47% of
> employment of adults.<sup>[3]</sup>
>
> 1 - John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press.
> 2 - Source: [note 1] page 97.
> 3 - According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to
> Doe [note 1] 47%
>
>
> At present each of footnotes 1-3 must independently contain the same
> duplicated cite info, or {{cite web}}. Allowing simply <reflink name="blah"
> />, rendered as "[note X]" with the correct note number, would allow
> something roughly similar to "ibid", referencing any other note (in the main
> text or another footnote) by number, without recursion.
So why not just use ''ibid.'' of ''op. cit.'' as appropriate?

Ec