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 Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:03:38 +0000
To: Sandy Nicholson <sandy@anich.demon.co.uk>, Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <8797.1045134218@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Dave Hodder said:
> 
> 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]:
> [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>

I linked to some of these in:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-rdf-in-HTML

but as far as I recall from an earlier reading, the linktypes have
changed somewhat between HTML (2, 3.2, 4, XHTMLs) versions.  This is
more under control of the HTML WG than something RDF Core can define.

Please can we move this discussion to www-rdf-interest.

Cheers

Dave
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 06:05:04 GMT

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