- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 02:04:04 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Henrik Lied wrote: > > In one of the comments in that post, it was proposed to use the LINK element > > with a REL attribute which relates to the different sections of the site. > > ... > > NAVIGATION Relates to the main site-navigation > > CONTENT Relates to the head of content > > ADDITIONAL Relates to an additional section, e.g. a sidebar > > DISCLAIMER Relates to the copyright-notice/legal I took the above into account when describing the predefined link types for HTML5: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#linkTypes ...but I think as a whole they are better handled by elements in the page (<nav>, <article>, <aside>, and <footer><small> respectively). > Hmm, interesting. They seem like more specific versions of > rel="bookmark": > > "A bookmark is a link to a key entry point within an extended > document..." > > Although, that definition is somewhat ambiguious, as HTML4 doesn't seem > to define the meaning of "extended document". > > Anyway, while on the topic of link types, what does everyone think of > these "web communication link relationships" [1] that I worked on a few > months ago? It includes relationships like: permalink, feed, via, > related, referral, pingback (borrowed from Pingback 1.0), trackback, > etc. Could some of these be improved and included within web apps? > > [1] http://lachy.id.au/dev/markup/specs/wclr/ permalink = bookmark feed = feed via = don't have that one, do we need it? related = it seems implicit that all links are related referral = don't understand that one pingback = pingback trackback = use pingback Let me know if there are any you specifically think should be added. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 18:04:04 UTC