Re: link relationship registration

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:50:09 +0100, Phil Archer <>  
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>  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.
> There shouldn't be any need for UAs to resolve tokens given as values  
> for @rel as absolute URIs and no one's suggesting that UAs should  
> actually make an HTTP request of any kind to every time there's  
> a link to a stylesheet. It's the person minting the new relationship  
> type that needs to check. What it means is that if you create a link  
> (HTML or HTTP) and use a @rel type 'foo' that gives a 404 from  
> then you really shouldn't  
> expect UAs to do anything sensible with it.
> Whether a UA chooses to actually implement support for a registered @rel  
> type remains very much up to the UA developer of course.

The concern is that besides supporting stylesheet (and it's case variants)  
we'd also have to support meaning the same  
thing. And thus also  
and the special behavior you get when both (stylesheet and alternate) are  
specified. We can map  
to stylesheet and such first, but I don't think adding another layer of  
complexity is justified.

(I'm not at all concerned about UAs having to fetch such URIs, as any such  
proposal would be stillborn.)

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 12:16:00 UTC