- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:59:33 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
Julian: Before we proceed to a call for consensus on this issue, can we get you to resubmit this proposal with a rationale that more clearly connects the dots. This needs not be anything more than the addition of words along the lines of "remove a feature that does not reflect reality". If the resubmitted proposal does not change the DETAILS section, we've agreed that this will not invalidate the previous Call for Counters, and we will proceed to a call for consensus at this time. - Sam Ruby On 06/23/2011 02:06 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > SUMMARY > > The "sidebar" link relation is defined as: > > "The sidebar keyword indicates that the referenced document, if > retrieved, is intended to be shown in a secondary browsing context (if > possible), instead of in the current browsing context." > > Tests show that UAs differ in what they do, and that none of the UAs > actually do what the spec says. > > RATIONALE > > Testing with five UAs shows: > > 3 UAs (IE / Chrome / Safari) ignore the link relation, thus navigate to > the linked resource > > 2 UAs (Opera and FF) open their "bookmark" dialogue, and stay on the > current page > > None does what the spec describes.13101 > > DETAILS > > Remove the subsection "4.12.4.13 Link type "sidebar"" and the related > entry under "4.12.4 Link types". > > Instead, follow the process for new link relations, by proposing this > over at microformats.org. > > IMPACT > > 1. Positive Effects > > People who want this link relation to be valid will have to follow the > WG-approved process to make it valid. When it is registered it will > likely have a more accurate description. > > 2. Negative Effects > > None. > > 3. Conformance Classes Changes > > The link relation "sidebar" becomes invalid until registered. > > 4. Risks > > None. > > > REFERENCES > > [1] <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/154> > [2] <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11183> >
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 14:00:15 UTC