- From: Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roconnor@picard.math.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 11:35:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, John Whelan wrote: > One of the things I had in mind was that a lot of times document A and > document B have a particular relationship, and you want to encode one > end of that relationship with a LINK element, but not really bother > with the other end, since there's an A (anchor) element in the body of > one document pointing to the other. For instance if index.html acts > as an index for foo.html, it's reasonable to put > > <LINK REL="INDEX" HREF="index.html"> > > in foo.html, but it would seem redundant to include > > <LINK REV="INDEX" HREF="foo.html"> > > in index.html because > 1) index.html is likely to have a REV="INDEX" relationship with > a lot of other documents > 2) index.html is almost certain to have something like > <A HREF="foo.html">Foo!</A> somewhere in its document body. > > So it seems like a reasonable way to encode the other end of that > relationship is to add the REV="INDEX" to the anchor tag, as in > > <A HREF="foo.html" REV="INDEX">Foo!</A> I agree with most of what you say. But to go farther, I'd even say that having <LINK REV="INDEX" HREF="foo.html"> whould be wrong. I see a LINK element as being a hyperlink attached to the whole document. In this case foo.html isn't related to thw whold document index.html, only the part of it that says ``Foo!''. So I'd say that <A HREF="foo.html" REV=INDEX">Foo!</A> is not only more natural, it is more correct. -- Russell O'Connor roconnor@uwaterloo.ca <URL:http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eroconnor/> ``And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message'' -- Anindita Dutta, ``The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy''
Received on Friday, 2 October 1998 11:35:20 UTC