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

Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:16:07 +1000
Cc: "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-Id: <21981AFE-844C-41FF-9DDF-9834889211E3@mnot.net>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>

On 08/04/2009, at 9:03 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

>>
>> 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.

Hmm. HTML4 doesn't even really give license to do the second form; is  
that consistent behaviour across all browsers?



>> 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.

Good point.

So, I'm very interested in whether 'up up' is a good idea, whose idea  
it is, who wants to implement it, and who already has.

More to the point, does anybody really need 'up up up up up up up',  
which is what this implies?


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 11:16:48 GMT

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