- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:48:50 +1000
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
>> Could some of these be improved and included within web apps?
>>
>> http://lachy.id.au/dev/markup/specs/wclr/
>
>
> I haven't read it completely, but this sentence sounds incorrect:
>
> # Designates a resource containing user contributed comments. May be
> # used in conjunction with feed to designate a syndication format
> # resource for comments.
>
> If you are proposing |rel="feed comments"| that would imply that the
> link is both about comments and is a feed.
I don't understand the problem. The comments relationship doesn't say
it's about comments, it says contains comments. The definitions for
comments and feed are:
comments
Designates a resource containing user contributed comments...
feed
Designates a resource used as a syndication format.
With comments and feed, it should indicate a "resource used as a
syndication format containing user contributed comments". Perhaps the
sentence you cited above could be clarified to reflect this better.
> |rel="alternate stylesheet"| was an error from the HTML4 WG (I
> discussed this with fantasai on IRC) because it actually says that
> the resource linked to is both an alternate representation of the
> current page and is a stylesheet. However, it actually is an
> 'alternate stylesheet' for the current page opposed to the default
> stylesheet linked with |rel="stylesheet"|.
I somewhat agree with this, although it seems that it is just the
definition of alternate that is poorly worded. If it were defined more
like this, alternate stylesheet would be more appropriate:
Designates substitute versions for the document in which the link
occurs or, when used in conjuntion with another link type, an
alternate version of the resource type indicated.
(that definition is not perfect, but I think you'll understand what its
supposed to mean anyway)
> I suggest you fix that (and others, if they exist) ambiguity first.
>
> Also note that we probably don't need |rel="permalink"| as the link
> inside an ARTICLE element with a value of "bookmark" probably does that
> already.
I somewhat disagree that bookmark does this. It's defined as:
"...A bookmark is a link to a key entry point within an extended
document..."
Unless I'm mistaken, a permanet link for the document doesn't really
seem to fit that defintion.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2005 05:48:50 UTC