Suggestion: 'rel="unrelated"' (was: Re: rel="nofollow" attribute)

> > Rather some alternative solution than this attempt, which in my
> > opinion should be ignored.
> So world wide implementations should be ignored? [...]

This sounds like "if all do this, it is good", which is likely to be
counterproductive. Nonetheless, Alexander, Asbjørn, and Lachlan, among
others, gave excellent feedback on the entire problem so far.

> I do not think the W3C can simply ignore such things [...]

In my opinion, if something doesn't make any sense, it /must/ be treated
accordingly (for example, ignored), and one /could/ start to look for

Nonetheless, what about 'rel="unrelated"'? It could "complete" existing link
types [1] and could also allow for specific handling - if someone links to
an "unrelated" resource, Google & Co could interpret it accordingly, by
ignoring it, by reducing its importance, whatever.



Jens Meiert
Information Architect

Received on Friday, 21 January 2005 09:49:14 UTC