- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 06:05:35 +0000 (UTC)
Here's a response to the link parts of your e-mail. I believe this concludes my replies to this e-mail. On Wed, 11 May 2005, fantasai wrote: > > Scanning quickly through the texts for <link> and <a>, I didn't see a > discussion of their differing semantics. Chris Hoess sums up an > explanation you gave to him four years ago in bug 87428: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87428#c43 > > "Ian actually managed to convince me last night on IRC that there's a > reason to have different UI for <link rel="foo"> and <a rel="foo">. > The first is a page link; the relationship denoted in the link element > applies for the whole page. The second is a context link; the > relationship denoted applies to the immediate context of the anchor > element." > > I would like to see this mentioned in the spec. I've tried adding a note to this effect. I don't know if it's especially useful. See r1706. > # The type attribute ... is purely advisory. > > Should it factor into the algorithm for determining a file's content > type when meta-information is not there, or is that outside the scope of > this spec? file:// behaviour is out of scope since interoperability on file:// isn't relevant to the Web. > One of the previous uses of <a> was to mark a destination anchor with > 'name'. For the most part, the 'id' attribute has made this use > obsolete. I'm wondering, though, what would be the appropriate WA1 > markup to use for anchoring to a bit of text that is not otherwise > marked-up? <span id=""></span>, same as marking up any text that isn't otherwise marked up. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 26 May 2008 23:05:35 UTC