- From: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 22:40:10 +0000
On 5/4/11, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >> IMO browsers should implement <link>. <link> should be implementable >> cross-browser in CSS. > > Unfortunately, what we want and what we get don't always match. :-) > I'll be a dick and quote your sig: > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' On a more serious note, implementing <link> can't be that hard. I'll probably patch my UA myself when I get the graphics layer working on my system (or just use links2). But I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that <a> should be used for creating hyperlinks that seem to belong to head, in a tree of html>body>aside>a, for compatibility with mainstream UAs. >> My actual concern regard navigation links not forming a part of the >> linear body of the document, but still being in <body>. Navigation links >> will most likely be rendered "out of band," potentially only on demand >> and paged/scrolled seperately from the body, or at the end of the >> document in one dimensional renderings (such as audio and text streams). >> They might even be triggered without being rendered at all, such as by >> scrolling out of range of the current document. > > It seems most authors desire far more control over their navigation links. > On many pages, it's almost as if the navigation links are more important > to the authors than the content, at least when you look at the amount > of effort put into them... > Sadly, the things authors desire may conflict with the things users desire. I also desire control over navigation links (among many other things). From authors, I desire only content. Bjartur Thorlacius yet another End-User(tm)
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 15:40:10 UTC