Re: REL and REV attributes (Was: More comments on HTML 3.0)

Murray Maloney (murray@sco.COM)
Thu, 27 Apr 95 14:33:56 EDT

> Ok, so let me get back to my suggestion earlier this week that we need a
> way to represent a "backup" command in HTML. The current state of affairs
> is that many authors put "go back to ..." links in. But, the intent is
> often to go back to where you just came from. This interfers with the
> browser's history mechanism, which is another "backup" command.

Is it really a "go back to" or could it be "previous" or "next"
-- by which I mean previous or next in a logical tree --
or even "go to top"?

Previous and next already have keywords specified in HTML 3.0 draft.
Go to top could be -- in some interpretations -- equivalent to "parent".
But it might be useful to have a "top" keyword.
> Several commented that the REV attribute could be used for this purpose.
> But, the only works if we have an agreed upon semantics. And there are
> likely other examples, such as TOC, Index, Glossary. A few standard values
> would go a long way to promoting such use.

Absolutely. SCO is already using REL with specific keywords --
as I have mentioned in earlier mail -- and we intend to do more.
> There does seem to be a place for standard semantics here. And a place for
> author defined relationships. Is the REV attribute the right place for
> both? What about CLASS, which looks to be similar?

There _is_ a place for standard semantics and standardized keywords.
There _may_ also be a place for ad hoc keywords, but other than
providing a mechanism for allowing this, there is no place within
the HTML WG for specifying that.
> --
> Dirk Herr-Hoyman <> | I tried to contain myself
> CyberBeach Publishing | but
> * Internet publishing services | I got out
> Lake Worth, Florida, USA |
> Web:
> Phone: +1.407.540.8309