- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:27:55 +0100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
On 21.02.2011 22:48, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > ... >> It seems like the issue here is: >> >> - Some <link> types (e.g. stylesheet, icon) can passively trigger >> loads, which are combined when loading the same resource. >> - <a> links only load something when explicitly activated by the user, >> so there is no issue of combining loads. >> - noreferrer alters loading behavior. >> >> As a result, noreferrer has clear behavior on <a>, but not necessarily >> on <link>. > > Yes, that is precisely the problem I am describing. > ... The problem is that link relations can put conflicting semantics on a link. This is not specific to link/@rel)nofollow. It could happen on a/rel as well. I don't see how the instantiation semantics affect the overall issue. If this is really is a problem, we need a generic approach to this. I believe we'll have to live with it, unless we're going to test any given new link relation against *all* of those we've sanctioned before. Note: HTML5 removed @rev; and the advice I've heard was to just mint additional link relations that express the reverse link, such as "authored-by" in addition to "author". So it's pretty much guaranteed that we'll run into conflicts like these anyway. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 21 February 2011 22:28:30 UTC