W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2007

[whatwg] WA1: Link type "index"

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:22:12 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0711051721320.30809@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, fantasai wrote:
>
> I believe the 'index' link type definition isn't quite right, considering
> prior definitions of the term[1]. It seems to me that 'index' would be more
> appropriate, given its prior definitions, for linking to things like CSS2.1's
> list of properties (Appendix F).
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/propidx.html
> 
> I think that for the hierarchical root, 'top' (which was defined in HTML 3.2)
> is more appropriate, both historically[2] and by virtue of its English
> semantics.
> 
> I also think that 'contents' and 'toc' should not be equated with 'top'
> because
> they are not always the same thing. I would expect 'toc' or 'contents' from
>   http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Gecko_DOM_Reference
> to link to
>   http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Gecko_DOM_Reference
> but 'top' to link to
>   http://developer.mozilla.org/ , i.e. the homepage of the website.
> 
>  [1] http://fantasai.tripod.com/qref/Appendix/LinkTypes/ltdef.html#index
>  [2] http://fantasai.tripod.com/qref/Appendix/LinkTypes/ltdef.html#top

While I agree with the theoretical distinction, I don't really see that 
any practical problem would be solved by separating these into different 
semantics. The spec just uses it to define document hierarchy.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 09:22:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:47:42 GMT