W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Suggestion: 'rel="unrelated"' (was: Re: rel="nofollow" attribute)

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:07:14 +0000
Message-ID: <4732C3B2.7090904@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

John S. Britsios wrote:
> 
> When it comes to Google, I would suggest something like rel="advert" 
> instead or rel="nofollow".

I seem to be missing the rest of this thread, or it was rather old.

Any marking of adverts invites advertising counter measures in browsers. 
  If the site is paid for each click through, most are not going to want 
such countermeasures to be employed.  Even if they were only paid for 
carrying the advert, the advertiser is likely to make it a condition 
that the advert not be marked in a way that makes disabling it easy.

Also, I think "nofollow" is a bad implementation of what is really a 
property of the whole of the third party provided content fragment, 
saying "untrusted"; in particular it is a command, but rel attributes 
are descriptive.  Strictly speaking, adverts also should be marked as a 
whole, but that would make it easy for countermeasures to remove the 
whole advert, not just the link.

>

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 08:07:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:12 GMT