- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:30:54 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > ... >>> As far as I can tell, Mozilla only supports one of each attribute. Are >>> there UAs that support more? >> How did you test that? > > http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/http/link/009.html > > Opera also only supports one of each attribute. > ... The current two implementations are buggy anway. I don't think it makes sense to restrict the header syntax to what Mozilla and Opera came up with in terms of support. It's clear that bug-fixing, test cases and more implementations are needed; if this occurs there's no reason to kill these bugs in Mozilla and Opera as well. > ... >>>> I'm concerned that this would disallow internationalisation of >>>> title, for example (e.g., you couldn't express both an english and a >>>> spanish title for a link). >>> That sounds like one of those things that looks good on paper but >>> doesn't really ever translate to implementations. Are we really >>> expecting authors to provide multiple titles per link? How would that >>> work in UI? >> I think Julian covered why it's necessary to have this. > > Do you mean here?: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0634.html > > If so, I do not find his reasoning convincing. > ... I didn't "reason", I just stated how to deal with this case in UAs: "The UI would select the language best suited for the user." What part of this didn't convince you? Are you saying that UAs are incapable of matching language tags? > ... > I think this basically makes the registry worthless. At least for HTML5, > there are several aspects that we need to have in a machine-readable > fashion for each link type, including: > > - whether the link type is allowed on <link> > - whether the link type is allowed on <a> and <area> > - whether the link type is a hyperlink or references an external resource > > If the link registry isn't going to be providing this, then it's not > really solving the problems for which HTML5 needs a registry. > ... 1) I note that HTML 5 doesn't have a proposal for this either. 2) What's the use case for this being machine-readable? Are you suggesting that implementations would look this up anytime they need it? How is this supposed to scale? > .. >> Take, for example, the "duplicate" relation type currently being >> discussed; while it's immediately useful for MetaLink, there are many >> other potential uses for it, and the client behaviour with each is >> potentially different. > > What happens when it's defined one way for Atom, and another way for HTML, > and then each group wants to extend their processing to HTTP linking when > used with SVG? > ... Then having a single registry with a well-documented registration procedure will be useful (as opposed to a Wiki). > ... BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 10:31:58 UTC