W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: `alternate' vs `alternative' (was Re: WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123: RDF/XML with HTML and XHTML)

From: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:53:45 +0000
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030211215345.A223@dmh.org.uk>

On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 08:11:38PM +0000, Sandy Nicholson wrote:
> 
> While I'm also in favo(u)r of consistency with the XHTML 2.0 draft and other
> publications of the W3C, I am more concerned that the word `alternative'
> should be used in preference to `alternate' in this and similar instances.

<snip/>

For what it's worth, the 'Alternate' link type has been defined since
HTML 4.0 as follows[1]:

    Alternate
        Designates substitute versions for the document in which the
        link occurs.  When used together with the 'lang' attribute, it
        implies a translated version of the document.  When used
        together with the 'media' attribute, it implies a version
        designed for a different medium (or media)

(The above is from the HTML 4.0 spec; XHTML 2.0 (4th Working Draft) uses
the same definition, the only difference being a reference to 'hreflang'
instead of 'lang'.)

Given that it's already in wide use (e.g. "rel='alternate stylesheet'"),
I personally think changing it now is more trouble than it's worth.  If
you feel strongly about it I think the www-html or www-html-editor
mailing lists would be better places to discuss it.

Regards,

Dave

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40-971218/types.html#type-links>
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xhtml2-20030131/abstraction.html#dt_LinkTypes>
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 16:49:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT