W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: Open issues - REL

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 08:16:56 -0400
Message-ID: <35A4B4B8.89DF331E@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
CC: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> I understood that REL was something whose values were defined as part of
> some 'official' process. Which is not to say that we shouldn't be looking
> at it, because Jon's idea makes very good sense, but more that there may
> be other groups who we should also be talking to (HC?). Of course I could
> be way off track here.

Hello,

The HTML 4.0 spec includes a list of 15 values for "rel" and "rev", some
of which were already recognized by some browsers when we published the
spec, some were not. The list is not definitive and not normative. The
spec reads:

   "Authors may use the following recognized link types, listed here
    with their conventional interpretations."

The spec also says that the list may be extended:

    "Authors may wish to define additional link types not
     described in this specification. If they do so, they should
     use a profile to cite the conventions used to define the link
     types."

In my opinion, a W3C Recommendation is an excellent way to 
establish conventions for new values. We can create a profile
for the desired values and publish it as a W3C Note. 

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#h-6.12

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) 
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814 
http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Received on Thursday, 9 July 1998 08:20:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT