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

Re: ISSUE-124 rel-limits - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:32:08 +0100
Message-ID: <4CDAD718.2070705@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 10.11.2010 18:20, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/124
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-124
>>
>> - We have a single change proposal to allow use of the "nofollow" and
>> "noreferrer" relations on<link>  elements
>>
>> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit alternate Change
>> Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details), in case
>> anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different change than
>> the specific one in the existing Change Proposals.
>
> Are we aware of any user agents that are intending to implement the
> proposed feature? If not, would the lack of such intent be sufficient for
> the chairs to decide against the change proposal even in the absence of
> other proposals, or does a proposal automatically win if it is not
> formally opposed by a counter-proposal?

With respect to "noreferrer":

Continuing with that line of thinking: given the fact that we only have 
a single implementation of this feature so far (webkit), would it make 
sense to take it out, and discuss the more useful "anonymous" annotation 
instead?

With respect to "nofollow":

This is advisory only anyway, and it doesn't seem like the search engine 
implementors are willing to help specifying it. Who knows? Maybe they 
*already* evaluate it on <link> elements in the same way? Who came up 
with the idea it only applies to <a> and <area>, for that matter?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 17:32:56 UTC

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