- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:03:38 +0000
- To: Sandy Nicholson <sandy@anich.demon.co.uk>, Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
- cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>>>Dave Hodder said: > > 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]: > [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> I linked to some of these in: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-rdf-in-HTML but as far as I recall from an earlier reading, the linktypes have changed somewhat between HTML (2, 3.2, 4, XHTMLs) versions. This is more under control of the HTML WG than something RDF Core can define. Please can we move this discussion to www-rdf-interest. Cheers Dave
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 06:05:04 UTC