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

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

From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 06:42:06 -0400
Cc: 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>
Message-Id: <39AB8F6A-F78E-4E58-A0B7-314C6D7A703F@la-grange.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Le 5 août 2010 à 08:25, Julian Reschke a écrit :
> 1) The definition of "bookmark" is:
> "Gives the permalink for the nearest ancestor section, or the whole document otherwise."

To check: As it been implemented in any kind of spiders, 
          or CMS to build automatic table of contents of pages?

What would be the nature of "link" elements which could become bookmarks?
Something like this?

	<link rel="index bookmark"… /> 


> 2) The definition of "external" is:
> 
> "Indicates that the referenced document is not part of the same site as the current document."
> First of all, this doesn't sound terrible useful. Where does it come from?
> But, assuming it *is* useful, why wouldn't it apply to <link>?

Indeed. I have difficulties to connect the use cases. 
It touches to the can of worms of what is a Web site.
A site distributed on multiple domains, a site only on one domain, a site which is a subset of a domain, etc. 

I would remove it both on "a" and "link"



> 3) The definition of "nofollow" is:
> 
> "Indicates that the current document's original author or publisher does not endorse the referenced document."
> Great. Why is this invalid on <link>? (see also <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10172>)


I think the reasoning is that there is no way that the "link" element has been set by someone who does not own the Web site. Initially "nofollow" had been designed by Movable Type, Technorati and Google folks (I may miss some people) for coping with comments on blogs which are spams aka external user inputs that have not been validated by the owner of the site. 

I'm not sure it has ever been proved useful in real for "a" either. The issues stay the same by not endorsing all comments links (by default). 

I would remove it on both.


> 4) The definition of "noreferrer" is:
> 
> "Requires that the user agent not send an HTTP Referer (sic) header if the user follows the hyperlink."
> Great. Why is this invalid on <link>? (see also <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10172>)

I'm not sure I understand the use case for this one. but indeed a/link seem to be on equal foot.



# Some references and sources

http://code.google.com/intl/fr/webstats/2005-12/linkrels.html
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-head-structure/#link
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-hyperlinks/#a
http://devfiles.myopera.com/articles/575/linkrellist-url.htm
Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 10:42:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 August 2010 10:42:57 GMT