W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2011

combining relations from multiple link elements, Re: ISSUE-125: charset-vs-quotes - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:42:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4D62258B.9040707@gmx.de>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 21.02.2011 04:50, Paul Cotton wrote:
> ISSUE-125: charset-vs-quotes - Straw Poll for Objections
>
> The poll is available here and it will run through Monday Feb 28th:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-125-objection-poll/
>
> Please read the introductory text before entering your response.
>
> In particular, keep in mind that you don't *have* to reply. You only
> need to do so if you feel your objection to one of the options is truly
> strong, and has not been adequately addressed by a clearly marked
> objection contained within a Change Proposal or by someone else's
> objection. The Chairs will be looking at strength of objections, and
> will not be counting votes.
>
> /paulc
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> ...

In the poll results, Philip Jägenstedt writes 
(<http>://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-124-objection-poll/results>):

> Finally, the change proposal doesn't specify how to handle conflicting information like this in a page:
>
> <link rel="stylesheet noreferrer" href="foo.css">
> <link rel="stylesheet nofollow" href="foo.css">
>
> Is the effective set of keywords "noreferrer", "nofollow" or "noreferrer nofollow"? Presumably both browsers and search engines would be clever enough to only issue one request, but should the search engine consider "that the link is not endorsed by the original author or publisher of the page" and should a browser "not include a Referer (sic) HTTP header"?

That's a good question but I don't see how this is specific to these 
link relations.

The spec should have generic statements about how to combine multiple 
link/@rel elements. If this is a serious problem (*), a bug should be 
opened independently of this issue.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 21 February 2011 08:43:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:22 GMT