W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: up up up, was: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:51:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4A9D5104.3090009@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Toby Inkster On 09-09-01 11.22:

> On 30 Aug 2009, at 13:24, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> The main disadvantage is that a recipient that only looks for "up" and 
>> which tries to build a tree of resources, treating "up up up" as "up" 
>> will create a broken tree.
> 
> How does "up up up" fit in with hierarchies where nodes may have 
> multiple ancestries?


[...]

> The rel attribute allows multiple relationships to be space-separated, 
> so I can imagine someone adding links to Winston Churchill's page like 
> this:
> 
>     <link rel="up up up home up up up up contents up up up up" href="/" />


The draft says that "Each occurrence of the keyword represents one 
further level." Thus it sounds as if  rel="up home up up" would be 
equal to rel="up up up home". (But may be that was you point ...)

W.r.t. to what one could expect authors to do, I asked the iCab 
developer about the "up up up" idea. His immediate response was 
that if we get "up up up", then we should also logically have 
"next next next" as well.

The meaning of "next next next" would be "the next after the next 
after the next". Usecase: A multipage document where one wants to 
provide links to each page.

To interpret both "next next next" and "next" as "next" would be 
no less or more confusing than having both "up up up" and "up" 
presented as "up".
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 16:52:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT