- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 01:25:27 +0000
Specs *and* publishers/consumers/implementations of rel-enclosure exist (see aforementioned wiki page). And the name is based on re-using the existing term with the same semantic from the Atom spec. Sorry but the paint on that bikeshed dried a long time ago in an IETF working group far away. ;) Tantek -----Original Message----- From: Peter Kasting <pkasting@google.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:20:54 To: <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> Cc: Glenn Maynard<glenn at zewt.org>; <whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org>; Jonas Sicking<jonas at sicking.cc>; whatwg<whatwg at whatwg.org>; Darin Fisher<darin at chromium.org>; <ifette at google.com> Subject: Re: [whatwg] a rel=attachment On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tantek ?elik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu>wrote: > * existing rel="enclosure" spec - download the link when clicked/activated. I object to rel="enclosure" purely on naming grounds. It is completely unintuitive. I don't find the fact that a spec exists for it a compelling reason to use it. (Specs exist for lots of things, many of them bad.) PK
Received on Friday, 15 July 2011 18:25:27 UTC