W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Skip links ARE a markup problem (was RE: Skip links should be a markup problem)

From: Bryce Fields <bryce.fields@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:10:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4000d8ad0504261910343764a9@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On 4/26/05, John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca> wrote:
> Bryce Fields wrote:
> >
> > And while IE
> > and Firefox support for the [relative] link element isn't native, a very
> good
> > extension for Firefox exists, as well as an add-on for IE (though
> > I've not tested the IE add-on).
> URL's please?

Sorry for not posting these earlier.  Was trying to get this post out
before a conference call.  Firefox 1.0+ extension is at
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/linktoolbar, and IE 5.5+ is
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/linktoolbar.  I've got both
installed, but because I never use IE, I've never tested that one
thoroughly.  The Firefox extension has a couple of minor bugs (for
example, it won't show custom relative types unless one W3C standard
type is present), but it's still pretty good.

> > Apparently it doesn't have to involve hacking DTD's at all. 
> > Personally I find the specs completely vague on profiles and see
> > nothing to invalidate their approach, but that may just be my
> > inexperience.

> Actually Bryce, after re-reading the spec as well, you are right, in theory.

First time for everything. :-)

> Perhaps what I should have said is that it would be better that the W3C
> specifically NAMED these relative links as part of the "recognized link
> types" referenced in the human readable spec
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links).  

Agreed.  I alluded to this before in that the link element was
originally envisioned as a means to define a documents relationship to
other documents.  It probably never crossed the minds of the people
who drafted 4.01 to consider applying link to the current document. 
>From what I can remember of those days of the web, semantics and
structure were nowhere as popular or important the topics they are

But in light of the evolving state of "web theory" (for lack of a
better phrase), link seems like the PERFECT instrument for
intradocument relationships as well, and in that light it'd be nice to
see the W3C officially recognize that potential.

> > So what's to stop developers now, and making noise now?  What good
> > reason is there that WASP (or a similarly-minded grass roots
> > organization) doesn't latch onto this now?  

> Nothing, but like everything else, it needs an initial "big bang noise" to
> get rolling.  

Or maybe just a handful of forethinking web developers and some of the
"A List" web types to catch on to the idea.  Let's face it, sometimes
the W3C moves at a glacial speed.  When you look at the some of the
new approaches to old web development problems (marking up nav links
as unordered lists, image replacement techniques, etc.), they were
never championed first by the W3C.  Rather, they sprang to life
amongst rank and file like ourselves.  Ideas bubble to the surface,
and if they're good, they stick.  Let's see if this one sticks.

Bryce Fields, Webmaster
Where I Work: Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education
Where I Play: www.royalrodent.com

"Do or do not! There is no try!" -- Yoda
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 02:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:25 UTC