- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:36:41 +0100
- To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:26:34 +0100, Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> 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. including "bookmark". > RFC 4287 introduced a > IANA registry for relations used with Atom: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations.html The point is that you asked why HTML 5 introduced "bookmark" which would be a synonym for "self" that Atom introduced. However, HTML 5 did not introduce "bookmark", HTML 4 did, in 1999. > 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 ? I don't think anyone has plans to work on that. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 16:33:04 UTC