W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:53:53 +1000
Cc: "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-Id: <9C63C85E-E9CA-4467-B524-BB846DE1A76E@mnot.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

On 08/04/2009, at 8:26 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:23:23 +0200, Phil Archer  
> <phil@philarcher.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, you'll have to know the actual values. You'll need to know  
> those anyway though to know what the link relation means.

What's the status of "up up", etc. in HTML5 these days? If we can  
grandfather in "alternate stylesheet" and not encourage other  
combinations, that may be a good way forward.

Also, has testing been done around UAs with regard to serialisation in  
HTML? I.e., which of these qualify as an alternate stylesheet  
according to implementations?

<link rel="alternate stylesheet" href="a"/>
<link rel="stylesheet alternate" href="a"/>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="a"/><link rel="alternate" href="a"/>

Again, if "alternate stylesheet" is grandfathered in and "up up" is  
supported by saying that all forms that result in two links to the  
same target with 'up' as the relation, it's a lot easier to get there.

>> 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> ;-).
> Things do not disappear on the Web :-)

Yup, absolutely, but we don't need to invent new variations of <font>  
just because the old one is there...

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 10:54:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:49 UTC