- From: Ron Schnell <ronnie@driver-aces.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 96 10:33:43 PST
- To: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
- Cc: craigt@ether.phx.mcd.mot.com, ronnie@driver-aces.com, www-html@w3.org
> > From: Craig Tinsley <craigt@ether.phx.mcd.mot.com> > | > | Ron Schnell wrote: > | > I would like to propose two new attributes for the Anchor element. > | > 1. ALT=[URL] > | > This attribute would specify an alternate URL should the HREF be > | > unavailable. > | > | Though I believe the idea as a whole is a good one, I don't know whether I > | would confuse HTML authors by offering another definition for ALT. It may be > | less confusing to use something such as HREFALT (you notice that I state that > | as though a typing *longer* tag name is more desireable than typing a shorter > | one... ;-) ). > --- > > There's no reason to assume that one alternate will be sufficient; you > really should allow for a list of HREFs. Since attribute syntax would > make it difficult to convey a list of URLs in the value of the HREF > attribute, it might be easiest to put the HREF into a sub-element of > A (or any other element where alternatives should be provided: > > <A> > <HREF TIMEOUT=10>http://www.abc.com</HREF> > <HREF>http://www.xyz.com</HREF> > The best source at this moment > </A> > > With an application convention saying that multiple HREFs are tried in > order. Yes, I thought about this being slightly more useful, but I hesitated to post it because I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that attributes can be processed without regard to their order within the element. If that is not necessarily the case, then I agree that this is the way it should be done. #Ron > > scott
Received on Friday, 24 May 1996 10:32:03 UTC