W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Re: More about <alt>

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:11:18 +0200
Message-ID: <f183b7a8487b8be627e7f18b68a896eb@10013.local>
To: public-html@w3.org

2007-09-06 18:14:37 +0200 Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>:
> At 16:36 +0200 UTC, on 2007-09-06, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:
>> On 9/6/07, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote:

> [... defined keywords to indicate type of equivalent]
>>> even we we define some generic predefined values like
>>> "short", "long", "audio", "captioned video", etc. we would still have to
>>> allow authors to use some non-predefined value: "table", "slide", "pdf",
>>> ".doc", "x", "y", "z".
>> But can't we define in the spec a short track for thoses issues ? A
>> way to update the spec (not the draft, the final spec) in for example
>> two month only for adding items in predefined names lists (role, rel,
>> shape, ...), without changing the HTML version number ?
> That's actually the case right now with @rel. See
> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-links.html#other0>.

That secion says that RelExtensions must be decided by the WHATwg blog, which again is decided by the «Microformat community». This section will of course change to a more relavant body and decistion process.
> I cannot really imagine this can work well though. The later a value is added
> to a list of keywords, the bigger the risk that those keywords are already
> being in use with a different meaning... So it would burden us with the task
> to first research to what extent a newly added keyword would introduce
> conflicts.

The PROFILE attribute is supposed to solve this. Without profile, one is supposed to use the default HTML profile (of HTML4 - that is.)

And the Wiki-page doesn't mention the Dublin Core extensions - perhaps the oldest «micro format».

> I suppose that in theory you could require authors to only use pre-defined
> keywords, and when they need something else, to first propose that to the
> HTML WG. But even if you'd provide an open and easy to use channel for that,
> I doubt that many authors would actually do that.

Well, I hear that HTML5 is about making W3 and specs relevant. Why would not Google have registered rel="nofollow" with the correct W3-body if it was such a body?
leif halvard
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 19:11:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:26 UTC