W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2000

Indicating mutli-level back operation required (was: idea for HTM L addition)

From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 16:59:49 +0100
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB582457D@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>

> From:	Maury Markowitz [SMTP:maury@sympatico.ca]
> 
>   Scripting is not an acceptable solution.  Linx style LINK tags are on
> the
> other hand.
> 
	[DJW:]  Lynx didn't event LINK elements.  The fact that it
	is mainly Lynx that implements them is a warning that there
	is no point in getting a new feature unless you can win the
	hearts and minds (bottom lines) of the browser developers.

	Moreover, LINK is not appropriate here, as LINK is
	intended to work similarly to A, resulting in extra entries on
	the history stack.  Also, in the Refresh case, 
	the target Link would have to be the referring page, which is
	not known.  
	  
	Actually, I'd say the correct way of achieving this effect would
	be an HTTP status code meaning "replace the current object".
	Unfortunately, if they were prepared to use HTTP status codes,
	most people wouldn't use the Refresh hack in the first place!

	Given that Refresh is non-standard HTTP, not HTML, any work around
	for its side effects needs to be HTTP as well (your splash screen 
	could be a PNG, not HTML with an IMG).

	HTTP is still under IETF control.
Received on Friday, 7 April 2000 12:05:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT