Re: ISSUE-118 CP 3, rel="start" and friends, rant

On 2011-07-07 15:05, Jordan Clark wrote:
> To Ian Hickson / whom this may concern,
>
> I second what DriedFruit says in his email, "ISSUE-118 CP 3, rel="start"
> and friends, rant":
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Jul/0000.html
>
> I too, was surprised to find that my previously valid web page suddenly
> had four errors according to the W3C validator, all of them relating to
> values found in REL attribute of A or LINK elements – two of which are
> microformats: rel-home and rel-licence)!
>
> I put it down to tinkering with the validator; after all, HTML5 support
> is currently experimental, but after reading this list, it looks as if
> this is going to become an official "feature"!
>
> I also believe that the range of values for the META element's
> HTTP-EQUIV and NAME are much too restrictive. Why can't you just allow
> arbitrary values for the attributes mentioned above? To not do so will
> not only break backwards-compatibility with *existing* technologies,
> it's also restrictive for *future* technologies too.
>
> I hope that you take the time to reconsider this.
> ...

With respect to link relations, you should follow 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/links.html#other-link-types> -- 
in theory you can make these relations valid again; and the process for 
doing so should be tested.

I *do* agree that it's not clear whether it makes sense to make 
unregistered link relations invalid, though. But IMHO the whole HTML5 
approach to validity is questionable anyway, so I have kind of given up 
on this topic for now.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 13:14:49 UTC