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

On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:27 -0700, Edward O'Connor wrote:
> >> I think it's defining the semantics of a nonconforming case.
> >
> > That makes no sense to me. Why tell authors semantics
> > of nonconforming cases?
> [...]
> > i.e. that some documents are non-conforming but
> > their semantics are of interest not just
> > to tag-soup-consumers but to authors as well?
> As an author, I'm interested in the semantics of documents that I write,
> regardless of whether or not I manage to obey all of the conformance
> criteria. So I think the spec is sensible in this case.

If the semantics are specified in the case of a missing link/@rel
attribute, I don't see how "must be present" is necessary for
interoperability (cf RFC2119). "should be present" is
more appropriate.

Dan Connolly, W3C
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 18:44:04 UTC