Le 2007-05-17 à 1:17, Ian Hickson a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Michel Fortin wrote:
I think it'd be useful to have that on rel values (link types) as
well.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Michel Fortin wrote:
The rel attribute is about links. What I meant by that is that I
think
it would be useful to have a private domain for link types too. It
would
work a little differently than on class though, because the
current spec
disallows unregistered link types while it allows unregistered class
names. My proposal would be to allow unregistered link types if they
start with a dash "-".
What's the advantage of allowing this, given that authors can
already use
class="" on links?
Given that predefined classes are no longer with us (something I
can't decide if it's a good thing or not), and given that this
proposal was in extension of a similar one about class that no longer
apply, I'm don't think it's worth pursuing anymore. The basic idea
was for consistency of rel with a proposed rule for class names, and
it has just fallen apart.
It's true that authors can always use class. The thing is that a
class name describe the nature of the content, while rel describe the
nature of the link. Someone may want to use rel to be more specific,
to mean that the term applies to the linked document.
So, a part of my reasoning was this: if you disallow completely
private values, those who want to have their own anyway will opt to
use whatever they like, possibly creating conflicting values for
later standards. If you allow private values at the condition that
they be distinctive, such people have a future-proof way of choosing
names, which gives them a reason to follow the rules and diminish the
risk of conflict.
In practice however, using either class or rel is going to be mostly
the same. I don't have any practical example where one would be
better than the other. I think, for now at least, that things are
good as they are and that my porposal should be abandoned.
Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.michelf.com/
