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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:30:47 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-id: <CA51EE3B-99CE-4F09-933E-5A1AAE8B9DD9@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Nov 11, 2010, at 2:23 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 10.11.2010 18:37, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> ...
>> Two-part answer:
>> - If there is no opposing proposal, we will put forth a call for consensus, rather than a survey. Implementors could object to the CfC, but then we'd likely ask any objectors to write a counter-proposal.
>> - If we have no implementations of the proposal by the time we go to CR, I would expect it to be listed as an "at risk" feature and dropped in due course if there continue to be no implementations. Likewise for any other HTML5 feature with no implementations going into CR.
>> ...
> It seems that I unfortunately got he granularity wrong for this issue; "nofollow" and "noreferrer" are different in
> - "noreferrer" has UA requirements attached to it, and
> - there's ongoing discussion of replacing/augmenting "noreferrer"'s functionality with more; see <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11235>
> I believe it would be good to drop the "noreferrer" discussion from this issue (and maybe open a separate once once we have made progress on < <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11235>).
> If the chairs are ok with this, I'd then update my CP to be specifically about "nofollow".

As far as I'm concerned, that would be acceptable. If anyone want to push the "noreferrer" aspect specifically, they are free to submit a separate proposal. However, "nofollow" on <link> could still be subject to treatment as an at-risk feature in CR depending on whether HTML implementations of the relevant conformance class (data-mining tools) implement it.

It does make sense that "noreferrer" and "nofollow" shouldn't be arbitrarily bundled as a single at-risk feature. At some point we'll need to prepare a set of CR exit criteria and at-risk features so we can evaluate this.

Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 15:31:22 UTC

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