[Bug 8748] New: Differentiating hyperlinks referring to the same tag in different scopes

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8748

           Summary: Differentiating hyperlinks referring to the same tag in
                    different scopes
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
               URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/history.html#link-type-tag
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: a11y
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: HTML5 spec bugs
        AssignedTo: dave.null@w3.org
        ReportedBy: gez.lemon@gmail.com
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: ian@hixie.ch, mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, public-
                    html-a11y@w3.org


Link type "tag" specifies the link relationship, but does not specify how the
tag name is to be determined apart from the link's text equivalent. The
specification does not define how an author might differentiate hyperlinks
referring to the same tag in different scopes.

For example, on Flickr, there are two links for each tag: "your photos with
tag: 'foo'" and "others' photos with tag: 'foo'"… If the text equivalent for
both links the same, an assistive technology user will not be able to perceive
the difference. If the text is different, there is no machine-readable way for
a script to understand that both links refer to the same tag. The Microformats
wiki page for rel-tag attempts to solve this problem by enforcing a RESTful tag
URL apart from the text equivalent, but it still has several unaddressed
development and internationalization issues.
<http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-tag-issues> If this type of link relationship
is to remain, consider adding an optional data attribute to allow the author to
explicitly state the tag name if it is not the same as the text equivalent.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 15:22:26 UTC