4 ms·
That's a fair point, thanks. I do still feel that the attribute is woefully underspecified (evidenced by the lack of the microformats list being updated, and th
by akersten 7y ago
That's a fair point, thanks. I do still feel that the attribute is woefully underspecified (evidenced by the lack of the microformats list being updated, and the fact that it's a wiki) so in my opinion the least Google could do here is to shore that up. If they contributed to the wiki or formalized it a little bit (like the HSTS list or public suffix list) it would go a long way as far as how I feel about their additions to the attribute. I realize that's quite a lot to ask for "just" a few new link types though.
- tannhaeuser 7y agoTo be fair, the WHATWG HTML "Standard" is also nothing more than a Wiki, or even just a collaborative space where everything can change at any time.
- magicalist 7y ago> To be fair, the WHATWG HTML "Standard" is also nothing more than a Wiki, or even just a collaborative space where everything can change at any time. well unless you're waiting for the second coming for someone official to come along and bless an RFC, all standards are born of a collaborative space where everything can change at any time. Versions are just snapshots, and good luck if you want to stick with one forever (hows that TLS 1.0 server going to work out after March 2020?). Anyways, if you want an official© W3 spec, here it is in HTML5 https://www.w3.org/TR/html50/links.html#other-link-types https://www.w3.org/TR/html50/links.html#other-link-types, HTML 4.01 https://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links https://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links, or hey, even back to HTML 2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1866#section-5.7.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1866#section-5.7.3
- tannhaeuser 7y agoI'm well aware of the various W3C's and WHATWG HTML specs (see my site at [1]); that was kindof my point ;) [1]: http://sgmljs.net/ http://sgmljs.net/