Re: rel="self", rev="made"

Anne van Kesteren wrote:

 [rel="self"]
> Or maybe the problem is with Atom:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links

I fear I miss the joke here, that's the old HTML 4
page listing some relations.  RFC 4287 introduced a
IANA registry for relations used with Atom:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations.html

You could merge it with what you need for HTML, e.g.
in the style of the two IANA "message header field"
registries - they list "http", "mail", or "news" as
applicable protocols, you know it.  For generalized
relations you could list "atom", "html", maybe more.

Maybe remove this from the core HTML5 specification,
it deserves its own document, not limited to HTML5.

> Wouldn't it make more sense for Internet Explorer
> to simply recognize the "icon" relationship?

Sure.  But my chances to convice MS that they have
to fix IE6 for W2K on my say so are lousy, about as
bad as my chances to convince IBM that need to fix
"netscape 2.02 for OS/2", let alone "web explorer".

The HTML5 spec. is apparently also for authors, and
authors need to know that "icon" alone won't cut it
- been there, couldn't believe it, added "shortcut".

Unlike rev="made" and Lynx IE6 might be around until
2019, and I HATE any "upgrade your browser" advice
for cases where this isn't strictly required.  Some
users can't upgrade (for values of can't != won't).

Admittedly missing an "icon" is no serious problem,
so maybe you're right about this "shortcut" madness.
 
 [relation registry] 
> The HTML WG is looking into what to do here.

Your draft is IMO far too ambitious.  How about a
"HTML 4.5" step cleaning up HTML 4.01 adding IRIs,
with a corresponding text/html XHTML 1.0.5 ?

 Frank

Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 16:26:24 UTC