Re: HTML link types - how much must be specified in the standard ?

Murray Maloney (murray@sco.COM)
Tue, 16 May 95 15:29:29 EDT

> Murray Maloney <murray@sco.COM> wrote:
> > Craig Hubley writes:
> > > 2. those which allow an author to use a REL value instead of a specific HRE
> > > essentially using the REL value as a pronoun (e.g. NEXT, PREVIOUS) and
> > > may represent those 'pronouns' as generic icons on a toolbar or a menu.
> >
> > Instead? When we use a <LINK REL=NEXT we still have to hardwire the
> > URL of the next document. Even if we were to rely on some external
> > agent to resolve the meaning of NEXT, we would have to hardwire a
> > cgi-bin URL that could resolve on the server side. I don't understand
> > how we could avoid specifying a URL.
> A server could supply the links in HTTP headers, instead of
> having them embedded in the document:
> Link: <> ; rel="next"
> Link: <> ; rel="previous"
> This could be used by the server to present different "paths"
> through a multi-node document.

This is a good idea and one which should be pursued.
But -- correct me if I am wrong -- it is not part of HTML.
Also, your suggestion does not answer my question --
and perhaps it was not intended to -- about how REL/REV
values could be used INSTEAD of a specific URL. This
suggestion offers another way to communicate a specific
URL and REL/REV value to the UA.