Re: HTML Link Type Model

Craig Hubley (
Wed, 17 May 95 18:35:28 EDT

> > the HTML 3.0 spec are wrong. The SCO implementation is wrong.
> > In fact, just about every single implementation of REL and REV that
> > I know of is wrong, the exception being Lynx's use of REV="Made".

If a name is universally understood to be the 'wrong' thing, and even the
extant implementations make the same 'mistake', then either the def'n
must be corrected to match the usage, or the name must be changed to
something that is interpreted correctly on first-glance if possible.
Link 'type' and link 'role' seem to be pretty well understood here,
as were 'why' and 'action' or 'method'. Why not use one of these for
the concept (or more than one, as we've been talking about at times)?

Craig Hubley                Business that runs on knowledge
Craig Hubley & Associates   needs software that runs on the net     416-778-6136    416-778-1965 FAX
Seventy Eaton Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4J 2Z5