W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2005

Re: rel="nofollow" attribute

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:45:55 +0100
Message-ID: <41F0DD63.4030006@annevankesteren.nl>
To: Alexander Savenkov <savenkov@xmlhack.ru>
CC: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>, www-html@w3.org

Alexander Savenkov wrote:
>> Jens Meiert wrote:
>>> Rather some alternative solution than this attempt, which in my 
>>> opinion should be ignored.
>> So world wide implementations should be ignored?
> First of all, Google Inc., Microsoft Corp.'s MSN division, Yahoo Inc.
>  and Six Apart Ltd. are not the whole world, despite the fact some of
>  them are quite large corporations.

They are globally used and cover almost the complete search market. From
what I have read it seems that all major weblog creators joined as well.

> Next, some of the world wide implementations should obviously be 
> ignored. E.g., from HTML: the poorly designed blink or marquee 
> elements. I mean, if something is available worldwide, it is 
> advisable to use your brain to at least consider the alternatives.

Could you give me an alternative? I do not really consider BLINK or
MARQUEE useful by the way.

>> If the W3C had proposed something for this a while ago, maybe in a 
>> single draft, I guess it would have been possible.
> Clearly, there is no need for that. Authors who wish to prevent some
>  search engines from indexing certain parts of their sites can
> already use the syntax described at http://www.robotstxt.org/ (which
> is truly worldwide, by the way).

Have you even read what |rel="nofollow"| is about? I guess not.

>> However, since it seems (I may be wrong) that the W3C is currently 
>> not really looking for what authors need, solutions are find in one
>>  way or another and implemented in user agents.
> Anne, do you really think that these caustic remarks are what authors
>  actually need?

Yes. I can see of reasons why you want to mention a site, but don't give
it any credit or want to share any relationship with it, according to

>> This particular thing is/will be implemented in at least 3 major 
>> search engines and in at least 10 weblog systems[1]. And that is 
>> only on day of release.
> Good news and good marketing. But you're mixing things up. 
> Apparently, there was an agreement betweeen the above-mentioned 
> companies, *then* the implementations started to appear. It wasn't 
> like someone shouted, "Hey, I've great idea! Have a look at my 
> syntax!" and - bang! - on the next day a major search engine 
> implements the proposal.


>> I do not think the W3C can simply ignore such things and say that 
>> some alternative solution should be made. If the W3C wants some 
>> influence on where the web is heading it should act before such a 
>> thing as this happens.
> Fortunatelly, you're not a member of the W3C team. Otherwise, we 
> would have marquee and similar stuff somewhere in the standards, I'm 
> afraid.

Well, I do not think that is true. I do not really think it needs to be
standardized now. I think the W3C should more clearly listen to what
authors want and act accordingly. Instead of watching things happen and
critize it.

If the W3C would have proposed something and something else was
implemented then there is reason to critize if the proposal was any good.

>> They can easily do this by looking for what authors want and what 
>> useful extensions would be for HTML and XHTML that authors need 
>> today instead of in 20 years.
> Again, unhelpful critics. Look at what authors want, help the W3C, 
> send the proposals, join the team, but please don't send "look ma, 
> what a great piece of code is developed while you're fooling around"
>  messages.

I have created various proposals for CSS. I would also like to point out
that I did not send anything about this to the W3C. I just replied to a
message about.

(I also pressed reply-all, which might explain why this message was
headed at various lists, instead of the one that is appropriate.)

  Anne van Kesteren
Received on Friday, 21 January 2005 10:46:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:55 UTC