This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 10644 - over-complex characterization of link types
Summary: over-complex characterization of link types
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
Keywords: NE, TrackerIssue
Depends on:
Reported: 2010-09-17 12:53 UTC by Julian Reschke
Modified: 2010-10-04 14:48 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Description Julian Reschke 2010-09-17 12:53:39 UTC
The spec currently allows link types to have different effects on <link> on <a>. That contradicts the goal of having consistent semantics of link relations, independently on where they appear.

In fact, none of the currently defined link relations differ in this; the only difference is that some are said not to be allowed on certain elements (whether *that* is a good idea is a separate issue).

Proposal: change the spec to define "effect on" for *all* elements, and have a separate flag/column to describe where they are allowed. 

This will simplify registries (see ISSUE-27), and also discourage definition of link relations that indeed have different semantics on different elements.

Related mailing list thread: around <>.
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-09-28 06:41:25 UTC
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:

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: I reject the premise that there is a "goal of having consistent semantics of link relations, independently on where they appear".
Comment 2 Julian Reschke 2010-09-30 12:35:27 UTC
Raised as