- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:42:13 +0200
- To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On 21.08.2010 19:31, Tantek Çelik wrote: > ... > As far as what elements a particular rel value applies to, I suggest a > single column: "element restrictions" with permissible values: > > * blank or empty - no restrictions, applies to<a>,<area>,<link> > elements in HTML > * "only a, area" - only applies to "a, area" elements for example. > comma separated list of applicable elements. > * "not link" - applies to everything but the HTML "link" element for > example. comma separated list of elements that the rel value does NOT > apply to. Of any non-empty restriction, I see this one being used the > most often. Wait -- are you saying that there are link relations that do not make sense on <link>? I think that's totally backwards (I just sent a mail in a separate thread about this -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0225.html>). > If this seems sufficient for the information needed for HTML5, I can > go ahead and add this column to the table of existing rel-values. Well, this would not address the "effect on link" aspect; and that was the example that was raised back last year as use case for "additional flags in the registry". (Validation is interesting as well, but I think the question of "what can I derive from the presence of a certain link relation even if I don't know its precise semantics?" is much more important...). Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 21 August 2010 17:43:02 UTC