W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > October 2001

Re: HTML friendly links to metainformation

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:51:45 +0100 (BST)
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20011021203741.P572-100000@fenris.webthing.com>

On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Jim Ley wrote:

> Nick Kew:
> >Yes they do. <LINK> support is gradually hitting the mainstream (recent
> >Mozilla and MSIE variants have finally got around to doing something
> >sensible). You'll lose that by putting it in a <BODY>.
>
> MSIE???

I was replying to Al - and since I don't know if Snufkin means anything
to him, it seemed simpler to say MSIE.

>	 If you mean my own suggestions of using various modifications to
> IE, or is there some other support? If it's my techniques, then it doesn't
> care about where they appear and serialises the DOM so it's still in
> source position (so it suggests not error correction)

All I'm talking about is rendering <LINK> elements in a sensible manner,
such as a toolbar (Mozilla makes this an option, and the installation
default is off) or right-click menu.  Of course some minority browsers
have been doing that for years.

> >OTOH nothing in your example will be rendered by any existing browser -
> >except the <LINK> if put in the <HEAD>.
>
> Or in the body? and I don't see how A can be used in any case as the EARL
> report isn't human readable (well there's meaning, but it's not
> accessible.)

I think the metadata-in-body is a different issue.  No, it wouldn't
(normally) make sense to put an Earl report link in a BODY.

> (I need to see some justification of why we're breaking backwards
> compatibility on the ROLE/REL issue with that.)

That's essentially my point too, but I'm shutting up now until I've
read properly the references sbp has posted in this thread.

-- 
Nick Kew

Site Valet - the essential service for anyone with a website.
<URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2001 15:52:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:39 GMT