- 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
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 UTC