- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:54:57 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: www-html <www-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Probably because it's not entirely clear what it would be good for -- in > many cases, there'd by many many "down" links. Yeah. The idea is that the parent page covers the child page sufficiently for the child page to not need coverage in, say, an external table of contents or site map. Perhaps "covers" would be a better name for this. > > My use case is for archived pages whose contents I can't modify [...] > > Hm. Maybe this deserves a more specific relation? In this case then I'd suggest "static", meaning that the linked resource is archived content which is not intended to ever be updated. For my purposes, I really need the "covers" kind. -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Saturday, 15 January 2011 15:55:32 UTC