W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: Meta stuff[was: [Fwd: Review of HTML 4.0 Specification]]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:37:34 -0500
Message-ID: <3420317E.5E9D@w3.org>
To: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
CC: www-html-editor@w3.org, ij@w3.org
Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Sep 17, 11:05am, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > Chris Lilley wrote:
> > > What they agreed on isn't a disaster;
> >
> > I believe it is. A link that's not marked up as a link
> > is a big problem to me.
> HTML has many examples of links not marked up as links. Foremost among
> these are:

Those are all identified as links by the spec (except A NAME).
Don't forget <form METHOD=GET ACTION="...">. Well... this
was made clear in the HTML 2 spec, anyway:


Each of the following markup constructs indicates the tail anchor
of a hyperlink or set of hyperlinks: 

     A elements with HREF present. 
     LINK elements. 
     IMG elements. 
     INPUT elements with the SRC attribute present. 
     ISINDEX elements. 
     FORM elements with `METHOD=GET'. 

Nope... it seems that the HTML 4 spec gets this wrong
(i.e. wrong in my opinion, and different from HTML 2.0):


There are two HTML elements that define links: LINK and A.

> > > more to the point they had agreement
> > > from search engine folks and librarians and etc etc - if such diverse
> > > industry groups all agree to go a certain way, I think it is unwise
> > > fro W3C to simply say "no".
> >
> > I really feel beaten down when I have to cede important
> > architectural points on the basis of more people shouting
> > louder.
> I hope that you don't really feel that group agreement is just "people
> shouting louder"

Not in all cases, but in this case, I feel it is just people
shouting louder. I believe they were presented with technical
arguments and refused to evaluate them. They offered no
technical counterargument. They just said "but we like META
and we don't like LINK."

> or that issues should remain open indefinitely until
> there are no opposing voices. Otherwise we would still be finishing
> off HTML 2.0

Yes, there is something to be said for progress.
But if it were just for progress and agreement and
money and commercial interests and all that, I wouldn't
be here--I would have sold out to the highest bidder
long ago. I remain in this position because I feel I
have a mandate to speak out on architectural issues.

Received on Wednesday, 17 September 1997 15:36:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:19 UTC