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

Re: Change proposal for ISSUE-124, was: ISSUE-124 (rel-limits): Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 19:32:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4CD6F0CE.8080608@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 05.11.2010 17:45, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:32:19 +0100, Julian Reschke
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Good point.
>> No, it actually should have the effect of not sending the header, and
>> it would be interesting to test that.
>> I'll update the proposal.
>> Thx, Julian
> Note also that it violates the supposed orthogonalness of link
> relations, as this would augment an existing one, much like "alternate"
> does in certain scenarios. Or do I see that incorrectly?

I agree that "noreferrer" falls into the "annotation" category, same as 
"nofollow" or "external" for instance.

The change proposal doesn't change anything about this; it just makes 
the link relation behave consistently with respect to where it occurs.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2010 18:33:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:06 UTC