[Al Gilman] > The basic reason for standardizing the name of the target anchor is > that there are two people who have to implement part of the linking > function involved: the better we name the function by what we tell > them to name the target, the better they will implement their two > pieces in a consistent and constructive way. Wouldn't standardizing the *relationship* attribute value make more sense? I realize that very few browsers support rel currently, but even fewer support the standardized skip-the-headers anchor name, so we may as well standardize a value of the attribute intended for precisely this purpose: expressing the relationship between ends of a link. -Chris -- <!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN"> <!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN" "<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487 <USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>Received on Thursday, 5 November 1998 18:19:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT