W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2006

RE: @role (was RE: More data on accesskeys (New article written Nov. 1))

From: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:32:13 -0800
To: "'David Woolley'" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01bc01c701fb$cd3dd8b0$508240ab@Piglet>

David Woolley wrote:
>> most useful elements.  Sadly, we've also been cobbled with a negative
>> chicken and egg scenario, where, because they weren't being used,
>> browser support for them became less critical (especially during the
>> first browser wars, where <marquee> and <blink> fought it out, and
>> on-screen flashy was naively the rage and focus of browser
>> development).
> 
> The transition from Mosaic to Netscape was basically one from user
> control to author control.  I would suggest that the real reason that
> link was dropped is that it wasn't compatible with authors having
> total control of browser behaviour.   

David,

Can you expand on this without it being a diatribe on the corporate evils of
the web?  On the surface your comment does not make sense to me... How does
the lack of support for <link rel> enhance author control over anything?  I
for one would have *more* control over things like navigation and SEO if
<link rel> were better supported, as it is now I use this type of navigation
enhancement in most of my site development anyway, individual browsers be
hanged... You know, Google kinda likes relative links...

Authors can chose to use relative links or not, and that has nothing to do
with browser support.  I think that now that content authors are becoming
more aware of structure, accessibility, and the importance of both legal and
SEO requirements, that with a little nudge in the right directions we could
actually see the re-birth of proper <link rel> coding and browser support...
Not always, not every time.  But it has to start somewhere...

Not everything is a conspiracy theory candidate.

JF
Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 23:32:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:31 UTC