Yes, because HTTP doesn't allow for the browser to 'intercept' and
'interpret' the name without going to the network.
> As with style sheets, that's unneeded. The link style sheet is, yes,
> the place where "the correspondence between 'relationship' and
> 'function'" should live. As for whether there's a place for it,
> you'll have to invent the link style sheet first. Perhaps DSSSL Light
I was trying hard not to 'invent' anything.
> has some possibilities, perhaps you need to do something else.
> Don't make us solve the link style sheet format issue in HTML.
Seems to me we have a "mine shaft gap"... :-)
> There is no reason not to arrive at common semantics for such things
> as LINK REL=NEXT, and every reason to try to do so.
No objection to common semantics, we should start with the list of functions
that the browsers already impose on navigation: back, home, etc., so authors
can 'tell' the browser what these mean in the context of a particular document.
That's what SCO has done.
>Application-specific info doesn't need to be standardized in the HTML DTD.
No, but any generic mechanism for resolving it, probably has to be referenced
in it. Link types are supposed to be an RFC *outside* the HTML DTD, anyway,
the only reason we continue this discussion in html-wg is that we were asked
to do so, to keep everyone informed.
-- Craig Hubley Business that runs on knowledge Craig Hubley & Associates needs software that runs on the net mailto:craig@hubley.com 416-778-6136 416-778-1965 FAX Seventy Eaton Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4J 2Z5