- From: Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:25:55 -0400
Le 2007-05-17 ? 1:17, Ian Hickson a ?crit : > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Michel Fortin wrote: >> >> I think it'd be useful to have that on rel values (link types) as >> well. > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Michel Fortin wrote: >> >> The rel attribute is about links. What I meant by that is that I >> think >> it would be useful to have a private domain for link types too. It >> would >> work a little differently than on class though, because the >> current spec >> disallows unregistered link types while it allows unregistered class >> names. My proposal would be to allow unregistered link types if they >> start with a dash "-". > > What's the advantage of allowing this, given that authors can > already use > class="" on links? Given that predefined classes are no longer with us (something I can't decide if it's a good thing or not), and given that this proposal was in extension of a similar one about class that no longer apply, I'm don't think it's worth pursuing anymore. The basic idea was for consistency of rel with a proposed rule for class names, and it has just fallen apart. It's true that authors can always use class. The thing is that a class name describe the nature of the content, while rel describe the nature of the link. Someone may want to use rel to be more specific, to mean that the term applies to the linked document. So, a part of my reasoning was this: if you disallow completely private values, those who want to have their own anyway will opt to use whatever they like, possibly creating conflicting values for later standards. If you allow private values at the condition that they be distinctive, such people have a future-proof way of choosing names, which gives them a reason to follow the rules and diminish the risk of conflict. In practice however, using either class or rel is going to be mostly the same. I don't have any practical example where one would be better than the other. I think, for now at least, that things are good as they are and that my porposal should be abandoned. Michel Fortin michel.fortin at michelf.com http://www.michelf.com/
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 08:25:55 UTC