Re: [whatwg] HTML5: New link-types regarding guideline 2.4 in WCAG 2.0
Anne van Kesteren wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: Could some of these be improved and included within web apps? http://lachy.id.au/dev/markup/specs/wclr/ I haven't read it completely, but this sentence sounds incorrect: # Designates a resource containing user contributed comments. May be # used in conjunction with feed to designate a syndication format # resource for comments. If you are proposing |rel=feed comments| that would imply that the link is both about comments and is a feed. I don't understand the problem. The comments relationship doesn't say it's about comments, it says contains comments. The definitions for comments and feed are: comments Designates a resource containing user contributed comments... feed Designates a resource used as a syndication format. With comments and feed, it should indicate a resource used as a syndication format containing user contributed comments. Perhaps the sentence you cited above could be clarified to reflect this better. |rel=alternate stylesheet| was an error from the HTML4 WG (I discussed this with fantasai on IRC) because it actually says that the resource linked to is both an alternate representation of the current page and is a stylesheet. However, it actually is an 'alternate stylesheet' for the current page opposed to the default stylesheet linked with |rel=stylesheet|. I somewhat agree with this, although it seems that it is just the definition of alternate that is poorly worded. If it were defined more like this, alternate stylesheet would be more appropriate: Designates substitute versions for the document in which the link occurs or, when used in conjuntion with another link type, an alternate version of the resource type indicated. (that definition is not perfect, but I think you'll understand what its supposed to mean anyway) I suggest you fix that (and others, if they exist) ambiguity first. Also note that we probably don't need |rel=permalink| as the link inside an ARTICLE element with a value of bookmark probably does that already. I somewhat disagree that bookmark does this. It's defined as: ...A bookmark is a link to a key entry point within an extended document... Unless I'm mistaken, a permanet link for the document doesn't really seem to fit that defintion. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Re: [whatwg] HTML5: New link-types regarding guideline 2.4 in WCAG 2.0
Lachlan Hunt wrote: With comments and feed, it should indicate a resource used as a syndication format containing user contributed comments. Perhaps the sentence you cited above could be clarified to reflect this better. Using two link values gives the link two relations, not one. I somewhat agree with this, although it seems that it is just the definition of alternate that is poorly worded. If it were defined more like this, alternate stylesheet would be more appropriate: Designates substitute versions for the document in which the link occurs or, when used in conjuntion with another link type, an alternate version of the resource type indicated. (that definition is not perfect, but I think you'll understand what its supposed to mean anyway) I do, but I'm not sure if it would be correct. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] HTML5: New link-types regarding guideline 2.4 in WCAG 2.0
Lachlan Hunt wrote: Using two link values gives the link two relations, not one. Yes, but don't both relationships apply to the one resource, so their semantics are combined? Not as I understand it. For example, a resource could be both the 'prev' document and the 'index'. What would be the combined semantics of |rel=index prev| or |rel=prev index|... -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
[whatwg] HTML5: New link-types regarding guideline 2.4 in WCAG 2.0
In guideline 2.4 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20041119/#navigation-mechanisms) it is recommended to add a visual skip link to jump to the different sections of a document. As Anne van Kesteren writes about in his post named 'Skip links should be a markup problem', these aids shouldn't be visual. In one of the comments in that post, it was proposed to use the LINK element with a REL attribute which relates to the different sections of the site. I would therefore propose that these link-types should be recommended in the Web Applications 1.0 WD: NAVIGATION Relates to the main site-navigation CONTENT Relates to the head of content ADDITIONAL Relates to an additional section, e.g. a sidebar DISCLAIMER Relates to the copyright-notice/legal agreements in the document -- -- Henrik Lied http://misinterpreted.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [whatwg] HTML5: New link-types regarding guideline 2.4 in WCAG 2.0
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Henrik Lied wrote: I would therefore propose that these link-types should be recommended in the Web Applications 1.0 WD: NAVIGATION Relates to the main site-navigation CONTENT Relates to the head of content ADDITIONAL Relates to an additional section, e.g. a sidebar DISCLAIMER Relates to the copyright-notice/legal agreements in the document Those are already in the spec, in fact. Except that they are not link types, but new elements. navigation is for site navigation. article contains the content. aside contains a sidebar. footer contains the footer (specifically, small inside footer contains the small print). Thus we don't need link types, and authors can stop using skip links -- user agents can instead automatically skip anything that the user wants to skip, without the author having to worry about adding in such links. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
