Re: Link style sheets [was REL and REV]

Albert Lunde (
Sun, 14 May 95 15:56:35 EDT

I'll comment first that I looked back at the archive trying to
understand the "linkas:" proposal, and it still seems unclear
exactly what it is trying to do or why we would want to
do it this way.

References to what SCO has done don't help much, as I don't have
access to their product, but I'm not sure we need this notation
to duplicate their functionality, and I don't like this notation.

> > If we are specifying a new link "something" that looks like a URL, we
> > should reference it with the same attributes as URLs. i.e. HREF.
> No. One looks up the *function*, the other is an *argument*. Your statement
> is exactly analogous to saying "I already have an argument that is a string.
> I don't need a function name to be a string, or any other arguments that are
> strings". HREF is used for both cgi-bin scripts and actual locations, and
> the result is that it is not possible to pass a location as argument to a
> script... in fact no consistent argument passing is possible for such fns.
> > I'm not convinced it is a good idea, but it makes more sense than
> > introducing a completely new name space that just happens to look like
> > URLS.
> You don't like "mailto:..." ?
> > Browsers that did not understand this new URL scheme say "browser:" would
> > refuse to follow the links.

I'm not totally fond of mailto: URLs, but mailto: and telnet: URLs
fit the model of "addresses to do something via a well-known
network protocol."

Netscape's local hacks like "about:" don't fit this framework very well
but they are still something that can be used like a URL in their

I'm not opposed to having URLs as two attributes: the use of URN on
<a> tags fits this (today we can't use URNs but some day...).

I don't think you've made a clear case as to what the heirarchical
"something" you are defining with linkas: is or if why we need it.

However, if we need it, I don't think we should use URL syntax
for this heirarchy unless we can give a useful intepretation
of what it might mean to use linkas: in one of the contexts
where URLs are now used, i.e. on <A HREF="..."> or <LINK HREF="..." >

If we are creating a heirarchy for some unrelated purpose, the
URL syntax is needlessly complex and confusing. Using a dotted
list of names works for a simple heirarchy.

There was one post that suggested we might need to get some
information on link information from a remote location, but I
don't see this as a reason to define a "linkas:" URL any more
than style sheets are a reason to define a "style:" URL.

(I also don't see what the distinction is you are trying to make between
"goto" and cgi scripts. )

I think you should try to make it clearer what you are proposing with linkas:
and why. You talk as if what you were saying was generally understood
or obvious: it's not.

I don't think we should use URL syntax unless there is a reasonably
good fit with other ways URLs are used. (This also might be treading
on the toes of the URI working group...)

    Albert Lunde