- From: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:53:45 +0000
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 08:11:38PM +0000, Sandy Nicholson wrote:
>
> While I'm also in favo(u)r of consistency with the XHTML 2.0 draft and other
> publications of the W3C, I am more concerned that the word `alternative'
> should be used in preference to `alternate' in this and similar instances.
<snip/>
For what it's worth, the 'Alternate' link type has been defined since
HTML 4.0 as follows[1]:
Alternate
Designates substitute versions for the document in which the
link occurs. When used together with the 'lang' attribute, it
implies a translated version of the document. When used
together with the 'media' attribute, it implies a version
designed for a different medium (or media)
(The above is from the HTML 4.0 spec; XHTML 2.0 (4th Working Draft) uses
the same definition, the only difference being a reference to 'hreflang'
instead of 'lang'.)
Given that it's already in wide use (e.g. "rel='alternate stylesheet'"),
I personally think changing it now is more trouble than it's worth. If
you feel strongly about it I think the www-html or www-html-editor
mailing lists would be better places to discuss it.
Regards,
Dave
[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40-971218/types.html#type-links>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xhtml2-20030131/abstraction.html#dt_LinkTypes>
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 16:49:31 UTC