Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:01:24 +0200, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org> 
> wrote:
>> Can we somehow concatenate the context and the rel type with some 
>> syntactic sugar, something like "alternate-stylesheet" or 
>> "stylesheet(alternate)" - thus preserving a single token as the rel 
>> value? Any syntax would do here - the key thing being that it's the 
>> syntax that tells you that one value is context for the other. I guess 
>> the fact that this doesn't exist in HTML 4 is the biggest obstacle.
> 
> You realize "alternate stylesheet" is in deployment already, right? We 
> cannot change the construct at this point. It does not automatically 
> mean by the way that in e.g. "search contact" search and contact also 
> have some relationship. It just means that alternate is special when 
> stylesheet is present.

Yes, I understand that. I'm trying to suggest a general way forward. If 
"alternate stylesheet" is the only contextual relationship already 
deployed (?) then an exception can perhaps be made for that but the 
introduction of "up up" and, no doubt, others in the future, needs to be 
disambiguated. As it is now, we have two different meanings of rel="x y" 
depending whether X and y happen to be alternate and stylesheet or some 
other values.

If such a formalism were to be introduced then "alternate stylesheet" 
can be deprecated and who knows, might one day even disappear along with 
<FONT> ;-).



> 
> 

-- 

Phil Archer
http://philarcher.org/www@20/

i-sieve technologies                |      W3C Mobile Web Initiative
Making Sense of the Buzz            |      www.w3.org/Mobile