W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Skip links ARE a markup problem (was RE: Skip links should be a markup problem)

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:23:29 +0100
Message-ID: <427002D1.6010609@splintered.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

David Woolley wrote:

> The original specifications defined various link types.

HTML 2.0 http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/html/rfc1866.txt only mentions 
<LINK>, but does not define the types (5.2.4)

HTML 3.2 *proposes* some types http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#link

HTML 4.0 and 4.01 list recognised link types 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/types.html#h-6.12  and 
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links respectively) but 
already mention profiles, rightly recognising that it would be near 
impossible to define a set of link types to cover any and all situations 

Unless I'm misinterpreting the XHTML 2.0 spec (and I openly admit to not 
having looked at it in any detail yet), 
indicates that you can use the listed default types, or define your own 
in a profile. Yes, at this stage it does say "hypothetical", but even 
the XHTML 2.0 spec itself is still in draft format...

> These were reduced

I still see the same ones in XHTML 2.0 that were originally listed in 
HTML 3.2 and 4.0/4.01

> and then banished to hypthetical profiles.

Again, I would argue profiles are the way to go, as they offer an 
extensible way to add very specific link types, rather than trying to 
tie down the spec too much in attempting to cover all possible present 
and future scenarios ... a bit like the eXtensible nature of X 
technologies and their DTDs/Schemas.

> My impression is that META elements were invented in order to allow 
> MS Word to store its metainformation in Word generated HTML without
> having to think about ways of using the existing constructs.  In particular,
> the hyperlinking <link rev=made...> became the non-hyperlinking 
> <meta name="author"....>

Hmm...impressions can be deceiving ;)

Not sure on dates here....META makes its appearance in the 2.0 spec, and 
possibly before (incidentally, where can one find the original 1.0 
spec?). Was Word already saving documents in HTML at the time?
 From "The META Tag of HTML" 
section 2
"The META element is used within the HEAD element to embed documents
    meta-information not defined by other HTML elements. Such information
    can be extracted by servers/clients for use in identifying, indexing
    and cataloging specialized document meta-information."

Moreover: not every piece of meta information can be hyperlinked...what 
if the author has no relevant web page / document?

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 21:21:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:31 UTC