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

Re: what is the spec telling authors about missing link/@rel?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:21:38 -0500
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1252002098.22683.11047.camel@pav.lan>
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:02 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> > In 4.2.4 The link element:
> >
> > "The types of link indicated (the relationships) are given by the  
> > value
> > of the rel attribute, which must be present, and must have a value  
> > that
> > is a set of space-separated tokens. The allowed values and their
> > meanings are defined in a later section. If the rel attribute is  
> > absent,
> > or if the values used are not allowed according to the definitions in
> > this specification, then the element does not define a link."
> >
> > If the rel attribute is absent, than the "must be present" constraint
> > is violated and the document doesn't conform. Why tell authors
> > anything in that case?
> >
> > Is this supposed to be marked as implementor advice?
> 
> I think it's defining the semantics of a nonconforming case.

That makes no sense to me. Why tell authors semantics
of nonconforming cases?

It was clear enough to me that we had two languages*:
conforming HTML documents (which authors are encouraged
to write and whose semantics are well-specified)
and stuff that implementations are expected to consume.
Are you suggesting the spec specifies even more languages than
that?

i.e. that some documents are non-conforming but
their semantics are of interest not just
to tag-soup-consumers but to authors as well?

* http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#conformance

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 18:21:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:07 UTC