Re: Proposal: New Anchor attributes

Ron Schnell (ronnie@driver-aces.com)
Fri, 24 May 96 13:41:39 PST


From: Ron Schnell <ronnie@driver-aces.com>
Message-Id: <199605241741.KAA24868@driver-aces.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: New Anchor attributes
To: marc@pele.ckm.ucsf.edu (Marc Salomon)
Date: Fri, 24 May 96 13:41:39 PST
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <199605241546.IAA24083@pele.ckm.ucsf.edu.UCSF-LIBRARY>; from "Marc Salomon" at May 24, 96 8:46 am

> 
> 
> 1.  Unlike elements, where order is preserved, I do not believe that
> an SGML parser must return attributes parsed as to order.
> 
> 2.  SGML doesn't allow multiple occurrences of the same attribute in an
> element.  I.e., you can't do <A HREF="1" HREF="2">.
> 
> 3.  The HTTP/1.1 spec has facilities for specifying alternate representations,
> but these only work if you can contact a server/proxy that knows such info.
> A more robust design would include a mechanism for authors to specify 
> alternative content locations in the document for content that might reside on 
> different servers.

Yes, this is what I thought, and that's why I didn't suggest it that
way.

> 
> 4.  Overloading ALT is problematic.  I had suggested that a convention of
> space-separated URI's in an HREF (or SRC) like: <A HREF="1 2 3"> eenie meenie
> minie </A> might work, but only for short URI's.  This doesn't break current 
> implementations (they retrieve URI 1), but can look ugly in the URI box.
> 
> -marc
> 

I like Craig Tinsley's idea of using ALTHREF, or maybe HREFALT.
Although having more than two possible alternate URLs is slightly
more useful than only two, I think having two is much more useful
than having only one.  I could see some "cool" uses for having
three, four, or five, but I think the really practicle applications
for this would only require two.  

#Ron