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

Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:07:35 +0000 (UTC)
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
cc: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008220905510.20486@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2010, at 8:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >> 
> >> Are there any link relations that have an effect on both <a>/<area> 
> >> and on <link>, but not the same effect?
> > 
> > In some cases "alternate", but for all practical purposes (and for the 
> > purposes of a registry) no, not as far as I know. I would recommend 
> > avoiding doing that, too, so we could indeed split it into orthogonal 
> > concerns: where the relation is conforming, what kind of relation it 
> > is, its synonyms, and the obvious stuff like name, description, and 
> > spec(s).
> 
> In that case, I'm not clear on why separate "effect on <a>/<area>" and 
> "effect on <link>" fields are required.

In the current RelExtensions page, the "not allowed" state is treated as 
an effect. I don't mind how the information is structured, though, so long 
as it is all there.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 22 August 2010 09:08:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 August 2010 09:08:04 GMT