Re: new anchor type?

Danyel Ceccaldi (
Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:26:14 +0200

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:26:14 +0200
From: (Danyel Ceccaldi (M. Kokula))
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: new anchor type?
Cc:,,, suggested:
> He eats a <A EXPLAIN="A exaprotaplutic hydafolliciplic castiento">quig</A>. agreed:
>Thats a great idea very worth while too!! said:
> He eats a <A HREF="#quig">quig</A>.
> ...
> <FN ID="quig">A exaprotaplutic hydafolliciplic castiento</FN> added:
> Yes. And it has already been suggested in the now-expired HTML 3.0 draft.

The demanded mechanism is already defined in the RFC1866 which describes HTML 2.0.
This RFC is in the category: Standards Track.

Once upon a time ago (see RFC 1866) there were the REL and the REV attributes for anchors.
When I'm right, the following extract of HTML ...

|... `ISO-8859-1' in the context of HTTP <A HREF=#HTTP REL=REFERENCES>[HTTP]</A>. ...
|... Name tokens are not case sensitive.</P><A HREF=#TOKENNOTE REL=NOTE>NOTE</A> ...
|... <A HREF=#ANCHOR REL=TERM>anchor</A>
|Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Frystyk Nielsen,
|"Hypertext Transfer Protocol - HTTP/1.0", Work in
|Progress, MIT, UC Irvine, CERN, March 1995.</A>...
|<A NAME=ANCHOR REV=TERM>a URI in absolute form; for example, as per [URL]</A>
|<A NAME=TOKENNOTE REV=NOTE>Some historical implementations allow any
|character except space or `>' in a name token.</A>
|... an example of how to use REL and REV to serve your request.
So it is already defined as a standard, the only thing you need is
to implement it or let browser developers implement it in their browsers.

This mechanism has some advantages:

1-works with the already released standard HTML-DTD
2-Browser which are not aware of the attributes ignore them without producing errors
3-Browser which are not able to handle rev and rel provide the same functionality
 (they are still able to display the relation between ANCHOR and NAME areas, they only lack
  giving these relations a semantic)
4-Within Anchors you can put almost all HTML-Tags
5-You can use many different semantics

With an additional Tag (one per semantic) you would have none of these desirable advantages.

Question for W3C people: I thought, there was something like:
The organisation where to register REL|REV Values is the W3C,
but I didn't found it in RFC 1866. Is it removed or moved or did I dream ?


---------------- mailing list signature of Danyel Ceccaldi
Please post constructive comments and replys to the list (and to only ONE list),
everything personal and minor comments to me <>,
everything else into the trashcan.
The opinions expressed or information passed here are my own,
and do not reflect those of my employer.