This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The current definition reads: "The external keyword indicates that the link is leading to a document that is not part of the site that the current document forms a part of." How is this useful? What's the definition of "being part of a site"? I assume it's different from "being on a different protocol/host/port"? Who is using it?
It's relatively common for pages, especially blogs or reference sites, to indicate an off-site link by styling it specially. Exactly what "off-site" means is up to the author, but it usually refers to something on another domain. (In shared-hosting setups, it could also refer to things on a different subdomain.) The implication is that the resource at the other side of the link is not under the control of the author.
(In reply to comment #1) > It's relatively common for pages, especially blogs or reference sites, to > indicate an off-site link by styling it specially. > > Exactly what "off-site" means is up to the author, but it usually refers to > something on another domain. (In shared-hosting setups, it could also refer to > things on a different subdomain.) The implication is that the resource at the > other side of the link is not under the control of the author. If it's for styling through CSS, why not use @class?
Yeah, this distinction is clearly useful for styling, but I don't see any problem with just using a class for styling.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: This is a very commonly requested feature.
. . . like requested where? And for what?
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/153
Doesn't make sense to have this as both REOPENED and as an issue, it was REOPENED after the December 8th cutoff, and TrackerRequest was added before the Jan 22nd cutoff, so we will go with RESOLVED/TrackerIssue.
*** Bug 12222 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(process note: this shouldn't bet set to "resolved fixed")
mass-move component to LC1
WG Decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Aug/0308.html Change Proposal adopted by Amicable Consensus: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0317.html
Done.
Checked in as WHATWG revision r6484. Check-in comment: Move rel=external to the wiki. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6483&to=6484