11181 2010-10-31 13:09:21 +0000 link type "external" either not useful or underspecified 2011-08-17 04:55:10 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED http://http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#link-type-external WGDecision P2 normal --- 1 julian.reschke ian annevk ayg contributor ian jackalmage mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking rubys public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 41882 0 julian.reschke 2010-10-31 13:09:21 +0000 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? 41883 1 jackalmage 2010-10-31 13:12:37 +0000 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. 41884 2 julian.reschke 2010-10-31 13:22:23 +0000 (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? 41906 3 ayg 2010-10-31 23:56:10 +0000 Yeah, this distinction is clearly useful for styling, but I don't see any problem with just using a class for styling. 43581 4 ian 2010-12-27 23:51:52 +0000 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. 43644 5 ayg 2010-12-29 19:35:58 +0000 . . . like requested where? And for what? 44389 6 rubys 2011-01-17 21:31:40 +0000 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/153 44390 7 rubys 2011-01-17 21:50:45 +0000 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. 49408 8 ian 2011-06-09 23:00:59 +0000 *** Bug 12222 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 50158 9 julian.reschke 2011-06-23 13:21:46 +0000 (process note: this shouldn't bet set to "resolved fixed") 53915 10 mike 2011-08-04 05:34:26 +0000 mass-move component to LC1 55093 11 rubys 2011-08-15 15:23:16 +0000 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 55275 12 ian 2011-08-17 04:54:06 +0000 Done. 55276 13 contributor 2011-08-17 04:55:10 +0000 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