- 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
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