- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:03:19 +0200
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:53:53 +0200, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > 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. Not sure what the status is. > 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"/> The first two. > 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. That doesn't really work. E.g. it's quite likely that pages have "up" links both as data in <link> but also within the page using <a>. You don't want those to add up I think. >>> 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... It's called style="" :-) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 11:04:09 UTC