- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 20:54:52 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12223 --- Comment #5 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-05-06 20:54:51 UTC --- If rel=help does nothing out of the box, nobody's going to know about it or use it, and if they do use it they'll misuse it, as with any hidden metadata. If it turns the cursor into a help icon, people will say "Hey, cool, rel=help turns the cursor into a help icon", and while they might not use it for all their help links, you can be sure they'll *only* use it for help links. This improves the value for everyone. People use features correctly only when their visible effects make it obvious how to use them. Authors usually use <ol> only for its intended purpose, because the visible effect is useless for other purposes. They do not use <br> only for its intended purpose, because the visible effect is useful for lots of purposes. They don't use rel=help at all because it has no visible effect. If your only use-case is "could be used for author styling hooks", then class serves the exact same use-case. Porting between sites is not an advantage of rel=help unless you believe that a) lots of sites use <a rel=help> (they don't), and b) it's reasonably common to copy raw HTML between them (seems unlikely), and c) you'd actually want to adopt the new site's styles for rel=help (not necessarily: what if site A just turns it a different color and depends on the text being visible, while site B replaces the text with an icon because all its help links' text is "Help"?). I've definitely seen help cursors used in some places for help links. I can't find any right now, though. Most apps don't have links to separate help pages these days anyway. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 20:54:53 UTC