Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <> wrote:
> I don't have very strong feelings about how to resolve this, other than
> thinking it's time to get other proposals written up and on the table. But I
> wonder if, based on what you say, a proposal like this could work:
> - The Microformats wiki (or some other extremely lightweight mechanism,
> perhaps hosted by W3C), will be considered the canonical registry for
> "provisional" state link relations.
> - Assuming the Microformats community is willing, we enhance the
> Microformats wiki with the information needed for HTML5 (i.e. whether each
> relation applies to <a>, <link> or both, assuming HTML5 continues to make
> this distinction).

This seems reasonable.

As far as what elements a particular rel value applies to, I suggest a
single column: "element restrictions" with permissible values:

* blank or empty - no restrictions, applies to <a>, <area>, <link>
elements in HTML
* "only a, area" - only applies to "a, area" elements for example.
comma separated list of applicable elements.
* "not link" - applies to everything but the HTML "link" element for
example. comma separated list of elements that the rel value does NOT
apply to.  Of any non-empty restriction, I see this one being used the
most often.

If this seems sufficient for the information needed for HTML5, I can
go ahead and add this column to the table of existing rel-values.



-- - I made an HTML5 tutorial!

Received on Saturday, 21 August 2010 17:32:03 UTC