- From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:42:56 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C6025A60.15C0C%eran@hueniverse.com>
But this is a different issue. UA applications use this as an include directive, which makes the order matter. The question is, what do browsers do with links with rel='stylesheet' and other values they do not understand? EHL On 4/8/09 11:37 AM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: Note that in HTML, the following: <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet"> <link href="b.css" rel="stylesheet"> <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet"> ...is visibly different to the following case: <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet"> <link href="b.css" rel="stylesheet"> ...and is script-detectably different to the following cases: <link href="b.css" rel="stylesheet"> <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet"> <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet"> <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet"> <link href="b.css" rel="stylesheet"> <link href="b.css" rel="stylesheet"> <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet"> <link href="a.css" rel="stylesheet"> Similarly, the position of <link> elements relative to other elements (e.g. <style>, <script>) and HTTP Link: headers is relevant to behaviour. On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Phil Archer wrote: > > For me, the biggest hole in Link in this respect is the lack of support > for media types. Not being able to write > > Link <styles1.css> media="handheld" ... > Link <styles2.css> media="screen" ... > > is a real downer but I know this has been raised before. Yeah, it seems like we would want provide attributes like media=""... HTML5 introduces sizes="" for one rel-type, if HTML is to use the same model so that you can set favicons from Link headers also, then we'd have to include this too. On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > What's the status of "up up", etc. in HTML5 these days? Tentative. (The section is marked "last call for comments".) I think it would be very unfortunate to lost this feature just because the underlying model can't describe it, though. > 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. I don't know of any software that does special things with rel="" for serialisation, so I haven't tested anything on that side. > 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. I don't think that would really work, I think it would be quite plausible for example for pages to have breadcrumb links at the top and bottom of a page. Also, note that as defined in HTML5 the breadcrumb mechanism is scoped to the current paragraph. This is something else that might be hard to express in a common data model. On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > So, I'm very interested in whether 'up up' is a good idea, whose idea it > is, who wants to implement it, and who already has. > > More to the point, does anybody really need 'up up up up up up up', > which is what this implies? Link types in general aren't that widely used, sadly. The idea with the new rel-up/rel-index feature in HTML5 is to enable breadcrumbs to be expressed; quite a lot of people have asked for ways to do this. I don't know if what we have now is the best way to do it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 20:43:48 UTC