- From: Patrick Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:33:58 -0000
- To: <www-qa@w3.org>, <public-evangelist@w3.org>
> David Dorward > Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > > Also possibly worth mentioning the "shortcut icon" rel > attribute which > > many people wrongly use. > > What is wrong about it? ... > It is an icon link, and it is a shortcut link. Hmm...my apologies. I half remembered the following bit from looking at the Wikipedia entry ages ago: "The rel attribute must contain a space-delimited list of link types, so a two-word link type would not be understood correctly by conforming web browsers." Of course it's a moot point if "icon" on its own is valid, as even if the user agent doesn't see the two separate words as a single link type, it would ideally see the "icon" part of "shortcut icon". So disregard my statement about "wrong" (although, turning the above argument around, calling an image a "shortcut" seems a bit of a stretch - to be pedantic, wouldn't the icon be a visual representation associated with a shortcut, and not a shortcut in its own right? Sorry, I'm probably splitting hairs here) P ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk ________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ________________________________
Received on Friday, 24 March 2006 09:34:13 UTC