Re: what is the spec telling authors about missing link/@rel?

On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> In 4.2.4 The link element:
> "The types of link indicated (the relationships) are given by the  
> value
> of the rel attribute, which must be present, and must have a value  
> that
> is a set of space-separated tokens. The allowed values and their
> meanings are defined in a later section. If the rel attribute is  
> absent,
> or if the values used are not allowed according to the definitions in
> this specification, then the element does not define a link."
> If the rel attribute is absent, than the "must be present" constraint
> is violated and the document doesn't conform. Why tell authors
> anything in that case?
> Is this supposed to be marked as implementor advice?

I think it's defining the semantics of a nonconforming case.


Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 18:02:45 UTC