W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 1999

RE: Navigation Tag

From: Stephanos Piperoglou <stephanos@internet.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:47:57 -0500 (EST)
To: David Wagner <dwagner@kevric.com>
cc: "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9912090238520.4520-100000@dawn.pipis>
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, David Wagner wrote:

> Alternately, since a elements may contain a rel attribute, UAs could
> choose (according to some priority system) to render only one of a
> set of elements with the same rel attribute value.

That wouldn't be too useful. Hiding the anchors only would cause some
problems. Jukka's suggestion makes more sense, as usually "navigation bars"
consist of a number of things, usually enclosed in some container like a

> UA behavior when elements set different hrefs for the same rel
> would, I suppose, be undefined.  (I think this would be an error for
> most relationships.)

Actually, not for most. Relations like "next" and "previous" probably
need unique targets, but relations like 'REV="glossary"' (which would
probably mean that the head of the link is a glossary for the
tail). Most of the relationships are one-to-many when in reverse. (on
the other hand, specifiying which documents a document is a glossary
OF is more trouble than it's worth).

>  Authors should specify related documents as link elements if they
> should be rendered by the UA, and in meta elements if they should
> not.

How do you specify a related document using META? And what about
REL="stylesheet" (which should is processed by the UA, but not offered
as a link).

Stephanos Piperoglou <stephanos@internet.com>
Maintainer, HTML with Style      http://www.webreference.com/html/
Received on Thursday, 9 December 1999 02:18:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC