- From: Ahmed Saad <ahmed.lists@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:33:29 +0300
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Hello David, Allow me to get back to your first post because I didn't know you were talking about the 'nofollow' value of attribute 'rel' .. On 22/08/06, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote: > I think this has the same flaw as the recent Google invention of > an attribute that prevents third party content links being followed > in that it is a command to the browser, rather than description of the content. Actually it's a command to search engine robots (that's the part where I got confused) but yes I agree it's "flawed" in some sense that it's not content description . > One needs to consider what happens if the attribute is dynamically > modified by scripting. It can be blocked from on-the-fly modification as in the case with the <input type="file" ... /> element .. On 25/08/06, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Google actually set an attribute on their links, but one of the > criticisms is that it is a specific command to the technology, > rather than descriptive, I agreed above and after reading Mark's blog entry [1] and feedback on this thread, I think that role="userinput" might be more appropriate in that it's "content description" in some sense and hints the browser that it shouldn't trust any code contained within > and the other is that what they really > should be signalling is that the whole of the third party blog > comment is unsafe, not just that the links are unsafe. I fail to see how this attribtute value is "security-related". What type of vulnerabilities it was desinged to protect users from? I think it just helps search engines produce quality results .. Regards, Ahmed [1] http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2006/08/using-role-attribute-to-extend-xhtml.html
Received on Friday, 25 August 2006 22:40:36 UTC