- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:06:20 +0200
- To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 01.09.2010 13:55, Tantek Çelik wrote: > ... >> In the current RelExtensions page, the "not allowed" state is treated as >> an effect. I don't mind how the information is structured, though, so long >> as it is all there. > > In that case, I would prefer to have two columns: > > "effect" > > and > > "allowed on" > > > This has a few advantages over the current "Effect on link" and > "Effect on a, area" split: > > 1. It encourages the same effect on all elements that the link > relation is allowed on. > > 2. The "allowed on" column can be simpler and perhaps automatically > used to extract validation/linting hints. > > 3. The "allowed on" column better allows for expressing other elements > (or vocabularies?) that may use rel. > > > Ian - do you have any objections to using "effect" and "allowed on" > rather than "Effect on link" and "Effect on a, area"? > > If not, I'll go ahead and add these columns to the microformats > existing-rel-values page accordingly. > ... That happens to be what I have proposed two weeks ago as well. Ian, would you consider re-submitting the application data registration using this set of fields? Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 12:06:59 UTC