Re: Proposal: New Anchor attributes

Dave Hollander (dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com)
Fri, 31 May 1996 08:49:21 -0600


Message-Id: <199605311449.AA023724167@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: New Anchor attributes 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 May 1996 14:20:29 MDT."
             <199605291820.OAA18753@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> 
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:49:21 -0600
From: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>


There are several things we should look at if we are to look at the
resource identification issues around links.  Just a few are:
  1) The ability to identify the URL the content owner would like agents 
	to remember a node by.  As was discussed in detail last year, 
	the base tag is not adequate for this purpose.
  2) The ability to have complex (non-simple CDATA) alternatives for links
  3) The ability discussed in this chain to identify multiple 
	alternate resources for a link.
Most are covered in Murray Maloney's draft which does not seem to have been 
discussed much (am I monitoring the wrong lists?).

As to Ian's specific suggestion to have the mlink part of the head: YES.
As part of response to a HEAD request, a user agent would know what 
alternatives are available to access the resource. Very useful, especially
for those of us who are facing the reliability issues of the "web".

Dave Hollander