12594 2011-05-04 11:07:54 +0000 The [MFREL] document does not currently contain the kind of information that is described to have. For example, there is no "status" information. Thus, it is impossible to say which keywords are allowed, though we might guess that keywords in the section 2011-08-04 05:15:21 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified Other other RESOLVED INVALID http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#head P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian eoconnor julian.reschke mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 47934 0 contributor 2011-05-04 11:07:54 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#head Comment: The [MFREL] document does not currently contain the kind of information that is described to have. For example, there is no "status" information. Thus, it is impossible to say which keywords are allowed, though we might guess that keywords in the section "Proposals" have the "proposed" status and no keywords have "ratified" status. Posted from: 88.114.29.18 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1 47948 1 eoconnor 2011-05-04 15:33:14 +0000 The three link type statuses defined in HTML5 correspond to sections of the existing-rel-values page as follows: 'ratified' rel values are listed in the 'formats' section, 'proposed' are listed in the 'proposals' sectoin, and 'discontinued' in the 'dropped' section. That said, if you find the formatting of the existing-rel-values page to be suboptimal, the right venue for pursuing change is in the Microformats community (via the existing-rel-values talk page, directly editing the existing-rel-values page, discussing your proposed changes on one of the Microformats mailing lists, etc.) and not through this BTS. 53582 2 mike 2011-08-04 05:15:21 +0000 mass-move component to LC1