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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:51:36 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimxu9_JYQ62XaaTLTs9d0taEw=t8-Jk7-CBqDYq@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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?

There's a important difference between "intends to implement" and
"does implement".

I personally don't have a strong opinion on noreferrer for
stylesheets. It does seem oddly singled out compared to things like
scripts and images which are more commonly linked cross site and thus
would benefit from a noreferrer feature.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 17:52:26 UTC

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