Re: link relationship registration

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:59:33 +0100, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
> On 10/12/2008, at 9:52 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> In HTML5 the tokens are not URIs and are not really URI-references  
>> either because they have to be case-insensitively matched (the HTML5  
>> specification is currently wrong on this).  
>> ( and stylesheet are  
>> therefore not equal either.)
> The registered tokens are effectively tokens, and can be considered  
> case-insensitive (see the notes on use in HTML4).

If you have

they would be the same in HTML, but would not be for the Link HTTP  
header... (It's also not really clear to me why relationship values are  
have to be resolved and why we not just use the same rules as we do for  

Also, I definitely do not want to start having to implement support for besides just  
stylesheet. (Not for the Link HTTP header or for the HTML elements.)  
That's just additional complexity for no gain and will only lead to bugs  
and differences among browsers.

>> In HTML5 people can simply provisionally register a new token by  
>> putting it on a wiki page. The token does not have to be a URI. (Though  
>> it could be a string that is also a URI.)
> See the discussion with Phil.

That's sort of the reason why I started replying...

>> In HTML5 there is no rev "link-param" because (non-academic) studies  
>> have shown that people do not really know how to use it.
> See current discussion about deprecating it.

What does deprecating mean here for the various parties (e.g. implementors  
and authors)?

>> In HTML5 media, hreflang, and sizes (just for <link>) also influence  
>> the relationship. Your draft does not have these "link-param"s.
> Other extensions are allowed; again, see the appendix about use in HTML.

It says they are believed to be defunct... media is pretty damn important  
for style sheets at least.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 11:12:48 UTC