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

Re: Slightly updated CP for 124

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 14:45:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4CD7FEE3.9090105@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 08.11.2010 13:17, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> On Nov 7, 2010, at 20:21, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>>> Change the introductions in [2] and [3] to allow the relation on<link>  as well.
>> [...]
>>> 3. Conformance Classes Changes
>>>
>>> None.
>>
>> It seems to me the Change Proposal is internally inconsistent. Surely the change being proposed would change at least document conformance (and maybe also search engine conformance).

I may be misunderstanding the Change Proposal template. Do you consider 
this a change to "conformance classes"?

> I would expect the change to noreferrer behavior to affect UA conformance as well, and there probably should be language in the Details section spelling out how.

If this helps I can put concrete text into the details section, but 
given the fact that the editor will rephrase anything anyway, it didn't 
seem worthwhile. I think "treat it the same as on <a>/<area>" is 
sufficient detail to make the change.

> That is to say: I assume the intent is that<link rel="stylesheet noreferer">  suppresses sending of the Referer header as it would for the<a>  element, otherwise the result of making this markup conforming would be rather confusing. However, it does not seem like the Change Proposal as written would have this effect. Specifically, the current spec language only suppresses Referer when following a hyperlink, but certain relations on the<link>  element, such as rel="stylesheet" or rel="icon", create an external resource link rather than a hyperlink:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#external-resource-link

Of course that's the intent. I'm really getting frustrated that people 
even consider I'm suggesting something else.

But you are right that the current description only applies to 
"hyperlinks" as opposed to "external resources", so I'll update the CP 
accordingly.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 13:45:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:27 UTC