W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2004

[whatwg] link-types

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:16:53 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411170105110.15515@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> We probably know the [link relationships] from HTML 4.01[1] and I think 
> that list should be extended by WHATWG for HTML 5.0. Besides extending 
> the current list of values, WHATWG should define what kind of mechanism 
> for extending the list of values should be used, more on that in a 
> minute.
> 
> I also think that we should change "user agents may provide access to 
> linked documents through a navigation bar" to 'should', since they are 
> only useful if UAs do something with it.

It makes no sense for Google to offer a navigation bar for links. This 
really seems like a "may", not a "should", issue, to me.


> Currently HTML 4.01[1] has defined a way of extending the link-types by 
> using the PROFILE attribute on the HEAD element, this element points to 
> a document which defines more link-type. In practice, this could be 
> something as the XFN 1.1 meta data profile[2], developed by GMPG[3]. The 
> problem is however that you don't know which link-type belongs to which 
> profile. If you develop a new profile which extends or redefines a 
> link-type, it becomes unclear which link-type should be used. Eric 
> Scheid put up a (RFC) draft[4] regarding this issue, which is probably 
> worth a look at when trying to solve this issue.

I think we should probably see what happens with that proposal before 
getting our feet wet in that arena, especially given that link types are 
less used directly by Web browsers than by robots (such as Technorati's) 
and therefore are not immediately important to Web application UAs.


This is an area that is being looked at by GMPG people quite a lot, and I 
don't want WHATWG to step on any toes here, especially given that we have 
a lot of (for WHATWG's goals) other, more important issues to deal with. 
However, significantly later in the Web Apps 1.0 cycle, or in preparation 
for Web Apps 2.0, it may be worth revisiting the issue, so I would 
recommend resending your comments at such a time.

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 17:16:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:20 UTC