Hixie at 03:05, 16 June 2011

2011-06-16T03:05:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:05, 16 June 2011
Line 4:		Line 4:
	** The ability for a link relationship to be allowed on <area> but not <a> has no use case and would be more confusing than a link relationship having different meaning on <link> and <a>, since <a> and <area> are interchangeable in a way that <link> and <a> are not.		** The ability for a link relationship to be allowed on <area> but not <a> has no use case and would be more confusing than a link relationship having different meaning on <link> and <a>, since <a> and <area> are interchangeable in a way that <link> and <a> are not.
	** A link relationship having a defined effect is not something that should be encouraged. If it is needed, it would be better to handle it as a special case in prose, since that would not give the appearance of it being a regular expected occurrence.		** A link relationship having a defined effect is not something that should be encouraged. If it is needed, it would be better to handle it as a special case in prose, since that would not give the appearance of it being a regular expected occurrence.


			[[Category:W3C Issue]]

Hixie: Created page with '* Fundamentally, the change here is editorial, and should be left up to editorial discretion. The suggested change is to a non-normative table, and despite claims to the contrary...'

2011-02-14T09:08:32Z

Created page with '* Fundamentally, the change here is editorial, and should be left up to editorial discretion. The suggested change is to a non-normative table, and despite claims to the contrary...'

New page

* Fundamentally, the change here is editorial, and should be left up to editorial discretion. The suggested change is to a non-normative table, and despite claims to the contrary in the change proposal, the change will do nothing to actually affect how future link relations are designed.
* There is no "goal to make link relations handling inside HTML consistent with link relations in other contexts". There is no particular benefit or use case to making link relations consistent between Atom and HTML. The two technologies are distinct and do not share link handling logic, even when a single software package implements both.
* The proposal claims to simplify the spec by removing a degree of freedom, but even if the section it proposed to change was normative, in practice it merely trades one degree of freedom (the ability for a relationship on <link> to be defined differently than on <a>) for two others (the ability for a link relation to be allowed on <area> but not on <a>, and the ability for a link relation to have an effect on an element but not be allowed on that element), which would be a net increase in useless degrees of freedom, not a net decrease.
** The ability for a link relationship to be allowed on <area> but not <a> has no use case and would be more confusing than a link relationship having different meaning on <link> and <a>, since <a> and <area> are interchangeable in a way that <link> and <a> are not.
** A link relationship having a defined effect is not something that should be encouraged. If it is needed, it would be better to handle it as a special case in prose, since that would not give the appearance of it being a regular expected occurrence.

Objections against CPs for ISSUE-127 - Revision history

Hixie at 03:05, 16 June 2011

Hixie: Created page with '* Fundamentally, the change here is editorial, and should be left up to editorial discretion. The suggested change is to a non-normative table, and despite claims to the contrary...'