W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: link relation "external", was: Link relation types and validity in <link>, was: ACTION-182 and Issue-27

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:05:54 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikhxamLiZNTFO+MUtJtF9HWx9b_=mMgeZfysQkS@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 05.08.2010 21:46, Edward O'Connor wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) The description doesn't really explain what it's for.
>>
>> There's room for editorial improvement here, sure.
>>
>>> 2) I'm not sure why the use case is considered valid; what's wrong
>>> with using a CSS class for it?
>>
>> "When a practice is already widespread among authors, consider adopting
>> it rather than forbidding it or inventing something new."[1]
>
> Is it widespread? Also, how exactly is using class names and CSS for styling
> something "new"?

Don't really have a horse in this race, but this logic would allow us
to add an element for declaring external links because "using elements
in markup isn't something new".

The real question here is if using class names to declare external
links is something new.

I'm also not a big fan of standards specifying specific classnames.
The risk of accidentally colliding with author made-up values is just
too great. (And yes, that means I'm not a big fan of the way that many
microformats work).

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2010 20:06:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 August 2010 20:06:48 GMT