[html5] <nav> for external links?

Sun May 1 02:58:13 PDT 2011

Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:

>> By definition, the <body> element is the entire document to be
>> presented to the user, including any navigation, top banner, footer,
>> and aside stuff. It's all there is, except that the <head> element
>> contains _metadata_ that may affect _how_ the body is presented.
>>
> So you're arguing that <head> should contain only <script>s and
> <style>s?

I'm not arguing anything about that, simply citing the definitions. And I'm 
surely not arguing against the definitions; <title> is required and <meta> 
and <link> are allowed in <head>, but they do no constitute part of the 
visible document, by definition.

> Information in <body> is highly context sensitive, but
> information in <head> may be rendered before the <body>, after or
> injected into it.

Browsers are not expected to render the <head> part, and they don't. On some 
browsers this may be changed using CSS, but that is rather anomalous and 
does not make sense except in special situations.

> I find
> <head>
> <link rel="related" type="image/jpeg" href=./complementary-image>
> </head>
> more logical than
> <body>
> <aside>
>  <img src="./complementary-image" type="image/jpeg" alt="">
> </aside>
> </body>

There is no rel="related" defined even as proposed at
http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values
How logical can an element be when you apparently rely on the meaning of 
some attribute value with no defined meaning? Would it mean 'is related to'? 
Rather pointless, as linked resources are always supposed to be related - 
somehow.

If the image is supposed to be rendered as part of the document, it belongs 
to <body>, and its placement in the markup is supposed to specify the 
default placement.

Yucca 