W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:03:19 +0200
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <op.ur2ebtmg64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:53:53 +0200, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> What's the status of "up up", etc. in HTML5 these days? If we can  
> grandfather in "alternate stylesheet" and not encourage other  
> combinations, that may be a good way forward.

Not sure what the status is.


> Also, has testing been done around UAs with regard to serialisation in  
> HTML? I.e., which of these qualify as an alternate stylesheet according  
> to implementations?
>
> <link rel="alternate stylesheet" href="a"/>
> <link rel="stylesheet alternate" href="a"/>
> <link rel="stylesheet" href="a"/><link rel="alternate" href="a"/>

The first two.


> Again, if "alternate stylesheet" is grandfathered in and "up up" is  
> supported by saying that all forms that result in two links to the same  
> target with 'up' as the relation, it's a lot easier to get there.

That doesn't really work. E.g. it's quite likely that pages have "up"  
links both as data in <link> but also within the page using <a>. You don't  
want those to add up I think.


>>> If such a formalism were to be introduced then "alternate stylesheet"  
>>> can be deprecated and who knows, might one day even disappear along  
>>> with <FONT> ;-).
>>
>> Things do not disappear on the Web :-)
>
> Yup, absolutely, but we don't need to invent new variations of <font>  
> just because the old one is there...

It's called style="" :-)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 11:04:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT