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

Re: Slightly updated CP for 124

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 06:35:18 -0800
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <F9BB10B8-D5BB-4F0C-8768-F7FF71061C4A@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Nov 8, 2010, at 5:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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"?

Maybe we should drop that section from the template, but the intent is that it mentions what conformance classes are affected by the change described in Details.

>> 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.

I was pretty sure that was what you meant, but the previous text was potentially ambiguous. Thanks for the update.

Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 14:36:00 UTC

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