++ If the HTML standard does not specify the exact behavior of "next",
++ then I still need to hardwire it, therefore I gain nothing if this
++ document is only advisory. The navigational links that imply a
++ specific browser behavior should be specified in the standard in at
++ least a 'notes on behavior' sidebar. Is there a problem with this ?
I think there is. I feel we should keep the separation
of informational/relational markings from browser guidance markings,
Is there a problem with REL=next as a relationship and RELCLASS=jump_button
as presentation/behavior guidance?
Of course this does highlight the fact that there are really *three*
concepts being overloaded onto links:
1) relationship/concept
2) presentation
3) browser behavior
Concept 1) is clearly within the scope of HTML. Concept 2) the group
has worked hard to try to avoid specifying. Concept 3) I feel should
also be avoided. Maybe we need companion "action" sheets in addition
to companion "style" sheets to deal with concept 3). Even though this
seems a big bother, I would prefer it to opening the can of worms of
HTML constructs specifying browser behavior. Let's stick with just
marking up the document with concept identifiers, and leave both
presentation and behavior outside the scope of HTML.
Michael