- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 09:04:41 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > ... > > Unless there are really strong use cases, I think that the anchor= attribute > > should be dropped. In practice, implementations today ignore that attribute, > > which would mean that, e.g., a rel=stylesheet;anchor=a link would fail to > > have the "right" effect. If it is kept, then the right behaviour for how > > this should integrate with style sheet linking should be defined in great > > detail. > > Could you please elaborate what the "right" effect is, and how current > implementations fail for that? Well unless I'm mistaken, if we have a resource A that has: Link: <B>; rel=stylesheet; anchor=C ...then that means we have a link: C - stylesheet - B ...which means that applying the style sheet to A would be wrong. Yet that is what UAs that support Link: would presumably do. > It appears to me that anchor is not relevant for every single link > relation, but that doesn't mean it's not useful at all. I don't see how it can't be relevant... if the link relation is between two resources, then acting as if it was a relationship between others seems wrong. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 09:05:20 UTC