- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:57:06 +0200
- To: Arpita Bahuguna <a.bah@samsung.com>, 'Arpita Bahuguna' <arpitabahuguna@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
On 2014-07-16 12:01, Arpita Bahuguna wrote: > Hi Julian, > > Please find my comments inline: > > -----Original Message----- > From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:10 PM > To: Arpita Bahuguna > Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org; Arpita Bahuguna > Subject: Re: [whatwg] Proposal to add website-* meta extensions > > On 2014-07-16 11:31, Arpita Bahuguna wrote: >> Hi Julian, >> >> Thank-you for your views. >> >> Are you suggesting that we instead introduce a new link relation >> (perhaps "contact") with tel:/mailto: types for specifying these parameters? >> >> This would involve spec modification. Not sure how developers or >> browser vendors take to it. > > Why would it involve a spec modification? > > Currently the link types defined by the specification are: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#linkTypes > > Please correct me if I am wrong but I suspect introducing a new rel type would involve modifying the spec as well. No. There's a Wiki for it. > Adding new meta extensions however would not have any such overhead as far as I know. > > >> Was looking for a simpler solution that's quickly implementable. > > Why is <meta> any simpler than <link>??? > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 10:57:43 UTC