Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Jordan Reiter (jreiter@mail.slc.edu)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 01:38:13 -0400


Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 01:38:13 -0400
Message-Id: <l03110704afe9ee473801@[198.77.183.84]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.3.95.970709115838.-297109E-100000@hazel.w3.org>
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
From: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available
Cc: www-html@w3.org

At 4:08 PM -0000 7/9/97, Dave Raggett wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Rob wrote:
>
>> After a quick read, some questions regarding LINK REV/REL attributes.
>>
>> What happened to Parent, Sibling, Child, Top, and Owns? (as in <LINK
>> REL=TOP HREF="index.html">) Are they deprecated? And what about
>> Citation, Bibiography, Footnote, etc?
>
>The W3C HTML working group chose not to include a normative set
>of LINK types. I could easily expand the informative section
>in the spec, but can't cover all LINK types.
It was my understanding that the LINK tag has essentially an unlimited
possibility of REL and REV values.  Is this incorrect?  Certainly, the
rendering of some of them may be limited (or be non-existent, in the case
of the BIG TWO), but I think limiting the possibility of values for the REL
or REV attributes would drastically reduce the potential of the LINK tag.

--------------------------------------------------------
[                    Jordan Reiter                     ]
[            mailto:jreiter@mail.slc.edu               ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[  The universe got you involved."  --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]
--------------------------------------------------------