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

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-127

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:04:46 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1011300001260.11018@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 30.11.2010 00:53, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > 
> > > Removal of an unused degree of freedom in defining link relations;
> > > consistency with link relations in other contexts.
> > 
> > It just removes one unused degree of freedom in favour of another (instead
> > of<a>  and<area>  always being the same, it separates them out so in
> > theory they could be different), while simultaneously making the spec
> Then let's just state that with respect to this, <a> and <area> always are
> treated the same (thus <area> wouldn't need to be mentioned).

Why can't we just say that new link relations allowed on both <link> and 
<a>/<area> must not be defined to mean different things? That would be a 
far less invasive change than your CP suggests and yet would be equivalent 
to what you're suggesting would be sufficient for the equivalent problem 
with your proposal.

> > more complicated (it increases the verbosity of the table in the link 
> > types section).
> I'm not concerned with the complexity of the table, but with the 
> complexity of the feature it defines.

Your proposal doesn't change any normative implementation or author 
requirements, so it obviously has zero effect on the feature's complexity.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:05:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:07 UTC