W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 1998

Re: LINK Element Confusion

From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:57:12 -0400
Message-ID: <01a401bdca00$1a5aa200$02addccf@ix.netcom.com>
To: "John T. Whelan" <whelan@physics.utah.edu>, <www-html@w3.org>
> I'm sure Frank knows this, but I didn't: the list of LINK
>types defined in HTML 4.0 is in the spec at
><http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links>;

Actually Frank had the information somewhere on his hard drive, but it was
not not well indexed<grin>

Now I've searched them down however here is the relevant documentation
relating to Links

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/links.html#h-12.3.1


Note in particular what the DTD says about the parameter entity LinkTypes

<!ENTITY % LinkTypes "CDATA"    -- space-separated list of link types    -->

This means that a link type can be absolutly any string we want!( no '<' or
'&' allowed though)

The specification defines the suggested types as in the URI provided by John
Whelan.

>types defined in HTML 4.0 is in the spec at
><http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links>;


However, as noted by the Web Design Group
><http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/head/head.html>, there is no
>format specified for this profile.  Does anyone know of a format
>that's in use?

I don't know of a format. It may be a good idea to work on one, because as
the  concept of the web as a series of objects grows, I think every one in
this thread agrees  the LINK element provides a suitable way of describing
relationships.

I suppose a file with a SGML type comment would be as good a way as any

<!--supplemental values for % LinkTypes

PARENT
CHILD
CHILDLIST
NOTES
-->


> Which is sort of using INDEX as a substitute for the
>non-existent PARENT

Exactly but a 'hack'

<snip>

>page.  (Except--argh!--there is no NOTES or FOOTNOTES link type
>defined.)

I supose PREVIOUS would work as the two pages form a "collection", but its
still a 'hack' and I agree footnotes would be much better.

> Along those lines, do I surmise correctly that there's no need
>to label both ends of a relationship with REL and REV LINKs?

Actually I think that if we are using LINK to help soft ware find its way
around and understand the structure of our sites it would be better to put
Links at both ends AND be verbose. After all you define an objects methods
and properties.

Getting back to the method of defining values for I suppose the best way
would be to use SGML syntax

Regards,
Frank

Frank Boumphrey

XML and style sheet info at Http://www.hypermedic.com/style/index.htm
Author: - Professional Style Sheets for HTML and XML http://www.wrox.com
-----Original Message-----

From: John T. Whelan <whelan@physics.utah.edu>
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: LINK Element Confusion
Received on Monday, 17 August 1998 12:51:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:37 GMT