Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:53:53 +0200, Mark Nottingham <> 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

Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 11:04:09 UTC