- From: Alexander Savenkov <w3@hotbox.ru>
- Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:53:32 +0300
- To: www-html@w3.org, Tim Bagot <tsb-w3-html-0006@earth.li>
- CC: Daniel Glazman <glazou_2000@yahoo.fr>, Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
Hello Tim, Daniel, Mikko, everyone, 2002-12-18T22:26:31Z Tim wrote: > At 2002-12-18T16:54+0200, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:- >> Daniel Glazman wrote: >>> 9. Link types should allow "icon" for rel/rev. That's proposed by >> I'm not sure how aural browsers should render the icon but I think we >> need to provide similar support for those too. > The site designer could choose to provide another icon of audio/* type; an > aural browser might render such icons when presenting a list of pages to > the user (whether for bookmarks, buffer selection, history, etc.). It > could even be served from the same URI, using content negotiation, > avoiding the need for an extra link element on every page. Therefore all > that is required is that the specification be written so as not to > preclude the use of icons that are not images. > It is however not entirely clear to me that icons do not belong in style > sheets - they are, after all, essentially entirely presentational. On the > face of it, icons of this sort do not fit into the CSS framework > particularly well, as they seem applicable only to whole pages (or usually > collections of pages), whereas CSS would tend to allow an icon to be > suggested for any element(s) in a document; OTOH it is certainly not > impossible to envisage ways in which icons for elements within a document > might be used (e.g. an automatically generated outline). Have a look at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-ui-20020802#box-model. According to the draft there's no need in "icon" value for <link>'s 'rel' attribute. --- Alexander "Croll" Savenkov http://www.thecroll.com/ w3@hotbox.ru http://croll.da.ru/
Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 12:09:14 UTC