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