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

Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:06:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4C7E41BC.9020206@gmx.de>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 01.09.2010 13:55, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> ...
>> 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.
>
> In that case, I would prefer to have two columns:
>
> "effect"
>
> and
>
> "allowed on"
>
>
> This has a few advantages over the current "Effect on link" and
> "Effect on a, area" split:
>
> 1. It encourages the same effect on all elements that the link
> relation is allowed on.
>
> 2. The "allowed on" column can be simpler and perhaps automatically
> used to extract validation/linting hints.
>
> 3. The "allowed on" column better allows for expressing other elements
> (or vocabularies?) that may use rel.
>
>
> Ian - do you have any objections to using "effect" and "allowed on"
> rather than  "Effect on link" and "Effect on a, area"?
>
> If not, I'll go ahead and add these columns to the microformats
> existing-rel-values page accordingly.
> ...

That happens to be what I have proposed two weeks ago as well.

Ian, would you consider re-submitting the application data registration 
using this set of fields?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 12:06:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:14 GMT