Re: <a footnote="proposal">

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:55:18 +0200


From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: lee@sq.com
cc: html-wg@w3.org, marc@ckm.ucsf.edu, pflynn@curia.ucc.ie, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: <a footnote="proposal">
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Oct 1996 18:10:04 EDT." <9610162210.AA24450@sqrex.sq.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:55:18 +0200
Message-ID: <27479.845538918@domen.uninett.no>

What more to do with it:

- Change all text about "discussion paper" to "experimental RFC"
- State that purpose is to gather experience with tagged links
- Delete or "make old" references to HTML 3.0, make sure the
  document fits reasonably well with HTML 3.2 (I think ID got lost?)
- Include link styles for embedded stuff like Java scripts?

If I were running an experiment on this, I would also add something
stronger than the current "maybe, maybe not" language, something like:

  A browser that wishes to participate in this experiment should:
  - Display a toolbar listing all LINK elements from the document head
    while viewing a document, with style depending on their REL and/or
    REV values
  - Provide some means (for instance a button-3 popup) for viewing
    the information associated with a link, including the target
    URL and the REL and REV values
  - Somehow differentiate display of links with REL/REV on them from
    links without those values. (Color?)

It's nice to tell whether someone is playing the game or not,
ESPECIALLY if it's an experiment - it's hard to tell if the experiment
was a success if you can't identify the players, so it actually makes
sense to apply stricter conformance to an Experimental RFC than to
a standards-track one.....

(Note - if you want a BOF on this subject in San Jose in December, you'll
have to apply Real Soon Now - I have an awful lot of WGs coming up....)

                    Harald A