<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">Yes, if HTML were to be designed today this would probably be quite</div>
different. I don't think, however, that navigational links should be<br>
categorized with the main content of the page, nor necessarily<br>
presented directly to the user.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm having a hard time with the ideal that navigational links are not based upon the content of the page. If, for example, the basic links of a brochure site are "Home", "About", and "Contact" and I am currently on the "About" page, at what point is the link not associated to the content?</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Any changes would have to be backwards compatible. Currently, you can<br>
simply omit the <head> opening and closing tags (in full conformance<br>
with HTML 4.01). You'll have a hard time renaming existing elements,<br>
in special considering that modern browsers might implicitly open<br>
<body> upon encountering the unimplemented element (potentially<br>
breaking assumptions).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The backwards compatibility issue is valid and it nullifies much of my observation. Point taken.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Well, you'll have to read threads of the WHATWG ML archives. There<br>
have been proposals for this.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Understood. I'll dig into those archives.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
AIUI, the doctype is a node in the DOM:<br>
Quoting <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/core.html#ID-1841493061" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/core.html#ID-1841493061</a><br>
> DOCUMENT_TYPE_NODE: The node is a DocumentType.<br>
<br>
What exactly do you mean by "not direct html content?"<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I placed "outside" in quotes hoping that statement wouldn't be taken literally. I understand that <!DOCTYPE> is a DOM node. The observation was more focused on the nodes behavior in the document. It works "behind the scenes" and is a processing instruction not a "physical" HTML tag rendered in the document (i.e. <head>, <body>, <nav>, <div>).</div>
<div><br></div><div>"Direct html content" was probably not the best set of terms to use. This goes back to my prior observation. I see a real separation between what is happening in <head> and what is happening in <body>. <head> and it's children are not generally a part of the visible document. <body>, on the other hand, deals with the content of the page, directly rendered by the browser. <a>Home</a> is "direct", while <link rel="stylesheet" href="url" /> requires the browser to look elsewhere "indirectly" before it can bring in what is being requested.</div>
<meta charset="utf-8"><div><br></div><div>At any rate, I'm not sure I see a reasonable argument for altering <link /> to work like <a> when <a> creates the proper protocol for "linking" pages together. To be honest, it feels like an over complication of the language to suggest their is some issue in deciding whether one should define navigation in <head> or <body> using <link> or <a>. I feel that the real issue is wether or not the proper semantic names are being used at the top level (i.e. <head> and <body>). Since backwards compatibility is as big of a concern as it is I don't think there is a debate to be had about wether one should create navigation in <head> or <body>. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Per the HTML 4 Specification:</div><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">"The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html40/struct/global.html#edef-HEAD" class="noxref" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; "><samp class="einst">HEAD</samp></a> element contains information about the current document, such as its title, keywords that may be useful to search engines, and other data that is not considered document content. User agents do not generally render elements that appear in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html40/struct/global.html#edef-HEAD" class="noxref" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; "><samp class="einst">HEAD</samp></a> as content. They may, however, make information in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html40/struct/global.html#edef-HEAD" class="noxref" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; "><samp class="einst">HEAD</samp></a> available to users through other mechanisms."</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">"Data that is not considered document content" is the key phrase there, in my opinion. From an information architecture standpoint, I don't see a reasonable argument for navigation links not being document content.</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I'll echo Mr. Hulse here and thank each of you for the valuable insight, opinions, and observations made in this list. I am a better developer for having been able to learn from each of you. Thank you all very much.</font></div>
</div><br>