I suggest that the source of our disagreement is that I see the
REL values as contextual hints to the user, whereas you seem to
see them as specific instructions to the browser, or as both.
I am wary of 'specific instructions to the browser' that imply complex
navigation (i.e. beyond 'goto'), and do not see a need to standardize
presentation-only behavior - nor does Murray, I think, as he repeatedly
(and effectively) argues to allow creativity by browser developers.
All of us, it seems, want to standardize the simple/standard navigation
already extant on the WWW. It is beyond this that we run into problems.
I suggest one of two solutions:
1. Adopt Ian's 'separate attribute for specifying browser processing of a link'
to separate the 'instructions to the browser' and 'hint to the user'. Let
each start as a short list of keywords - if more complexity is required let
each evolve separately (i.e. the 'instructions' become a general purpose
means of calling functions over a network, while the 'hints' evolve within
different author communities for different purposes).
2. Restrict the list to the simple navigational paradigm (HOME, NEXT, PREVIOUS)
which we know to be universal. Guarantee reasonable default behavior (i.e.
'goto (HREF)') for any REL value that a browser does not recognize. Reserve
other keywords and suggest presentation behavior for these, but do not allow
any interpretation that is incompatible with 'goto (HREF)' now or in future.
--
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