W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:42:13 +0200
Message-ID: <4C700FF5.3020302@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 21 August 2010 17:43:03 GMT