- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 08:16:56 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
- CC: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> I understood that REL was something whose values were defined as part of
> some 'official' process. Which is not to say that we shouldn't be looking
> at it, because Jon's idea makes very good sense, but more that there may
> be other groups who we should also be talking to (HC?). Of course I could
> be way off track here.
Hello,
The HTML 4.0 spec includes a list of 15 values for "rel" and "rev", some
of which were already recognized by some browsers when we published the
spec, some were not. The list is not definitive and not normative. The
spec reads:
"Authors may use the following recognized link types, listed here
with their conventional interpretations."
The spec also says that the list may be extended:
"Authors may wish to define additional link types not
described in this specification. If they do so, they should
use a profile to cite the conventions used to define the link
types."
In my opinion, a W3C Recommendation is an excellent way to
establish conventions for new values. We can create a profile
for the desired values and publish it as a W3C Note.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#h-6.12
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814
http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Received on Thursday, 9 July 1998 08:20:59 UTC