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

Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:42:56 -0700
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C6025A60.15C0C%eran@hueniverse.com>
But this is a different issue. UA applications use this as an include directive, which makes the order matter. The question is, what do browsers do with links with rel='stylesheet' and other values they do not understand?

EHL


On 4/8/09 11:37 AM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:



Note that in HTML, the following:

   <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet">
   <link href="b.css" rel="stylesheet">
   <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet">

...is visibly different to the following case:

   <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet">
   <link href="b.css" rel="stylesheet">

...and is script-detectably different to the following cases:

   <link href="b.css" rel="stylesheet">
   <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet">

   <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet">
   <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet">
   <link href="b.css" rel="stylesheet">

   <link href="b.css" rel="stylesheet">
   <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet">
   <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet">

Similarly, the position of <link> elements relative to other elements
(e.g. <style>, <script>) and HTTP Link: headers is relevant to behaviour.


On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Phil Archer wrote:
>
> For me, the biggest hole in Link in this respect is the lack of support
> for media types. Not being able to write
>
> Link <styles1.css> media="handheld" ...
> Link <styles2.css> media="screen" ...
>
> is a real downer but I know this has been raised before.

Yeah, it seems like we would want provide attributes like media=""...
HTML5 introduces sizes="" for one rel-type, if HTML is to use the same
model so that you can set favicons from Link headers also, then we'd have
to include this too.


On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> What's the status of "up up", etc. in HTML5 these days?

Tentative. (The section is marked "last call for comments".)

I think it would be very unfortunate to lost this feature just because the
underlying model can't describe it, though.


> 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. I don't know of any software that does special things with
rel="" for serialisation, so I haven't tested anything on that side.


> 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.

I don't think that would really work, I think it would be quite plausible
for example for pages to have breadcrumb links at the top and bottom of a
page.

Also, note that as defined in HTML5 the breadcrumb mechanism is scoped to
the current paragraph. This is something else that might be hard to
express in a common data model.


On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> 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?

Link types in general aren't that widely used, sadly. The idea with the
new rel-up/rel-index feature in HTML5 is to enable breadcrumbs to be
expressed; quite a lot of people have asked for ways to do this. I don't
know if what we have now is the best way to do it.

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 20:43:48 GMT

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