Re: LINK Element Confusion

Thanks, for the input. I'm glad to see there are others with interest 
in the LINK element.

Frank Wrote:

>I was unable to find the letter you refered to in the archives the
><LINK> element is potentially extreamly useful especially as a
>source of Linking meta-data.

Frank, Mr. Yee's letter can be found at:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/1997Aug/subject.html 

Find in Page:

Link source/destination confusion

John Wrote:

>But of course if we want automated indexing agents to deal with
>LINK data, we need to have a standard set of definitions that don't
>require the bot to have a thesauraus.

Agreed. What we are talking about is the need for a more clearly
defined standard.

Colin Wrote:

>Personally I think that the menu idea is good enough to warrant
>implementation 

I agree.

In regards to "OO" terminology, PARENT, CHILD, SIBLING, could be used
for documents that are arranged as a "family" or have a tree
structure; whereas, START, NEXT and PREV could be used for traversing
a linear set of documents. However, as Frank listed, the current
specification does not include PARENT, CHILD and SIBLING. 

There are also proposals for attributes, NAVIGATION and BANNER. These
would be useful for identifying the relationships of documents that
serve as menubars and banners displayed in framsets along with the
main documents. Bots could use the links in a menubar to build a 
structure that reflects the author's intention of how the site should 
be navigated.

Again, I hope the editors will consider some of our suggestions and 
more clearly define the use of these attributes so that developers 
will begin to use the potential of this element. 

Sincerely,


Bo Holloman
1360 Riverwood Drive
Jackson, Mississippi 39211

(601) 952-0015
(601) 977-9416

Received on Saturday, 15 August 1998 15:02:08 UTC