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 12145 - define how to resolve conflicting link types
Summary: define how to resolve conflicting link types
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-02-21 09:35 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2011-08-04 05:05 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description contributor 2011-02-21 09:35:29 UTC
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html
Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#linkTypes

Comment:
define how to resolve conflicting link types

Posted from: 83.218.67.122
Comment 1 Philip J├Ągenstedt 2011-02-21 09:43:58 UTC
Hmm, I wanted to write some examples here in response to <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0345.html>, but all I could come up with in the existing list of keywords is:

<link rel="prev" href="foo.html">
<link rel="next" href="foo.html">

It turns out this isn't really a conflict, it would just result in a circular reference of sorts, which is silly but not something implementations need to handle.

<link rel="next" href="foo.html">
<link rel="next" href="bar.html">

This is not a conflict between the link types, but rather a question of which document would be navigated to if one follows the "next" button in a browser. That should be defined, but is unrelated to the problem I tried to formulate.
Comment 2 Julian Reschke 2011-02-21 09:50:22 UTC
Well, link types can express conflicting information. The more types we get, the more likely it gets.

That being said, it can happen with multiple <link> elements, but even in a single <a>.

In general, I'd call it an authoring mistake, for which UA behavior will be hard to define without actually knowing the link relation.
Comment 3 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:05:37 UTC
mass-moved component to LC1