[whatwg] (no subject)
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Dec 19 16:55:48 PST 2005
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 mpt at myrealbox.com wrote:
> On 14 Dec, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> > ...
> > Personally I wouldn't mind upgrading LINK to something that
> > user-agents must support :) But then still, until they all do, authors
> > will have to continue providing in-body navigational content.
> > ...
> > The thing is that due to some user agents not supporting LINK, authors
> > 'need' to repeat the LINK's content in the BODY, wasting valuable
> > screen space for LINK-capable browsers.
> And that is the vicious cycle that means <link> navigation will never be
> viable. As long as *any* widely-used browser does not implement it
> reliably, Web authors will have to duplicate <link>s with navigation in
> the <body> (unless they UA-sniff, which will usually be too much
> trouble). As long as sites using <link> navigation have to duplicate it
> in the <body>, most of them won't bother, making it a low priority for
> browser vendors. And as long as sites using <link> navigation have to
> duplicate it in the <body>, browser vendors will have an incentive *not*
> to support it reliably, because if they do, <link>ed sites will have
> confusingly redundant navigation when viewed in that browser.
> That could perhaps be worked around by surrounding fallback navigation
> with a <nolink> element, to be presented by browsers that didn't support
> <link> (analagous to <noframes>). But there are other problems, such as
> the vast majority of authors not *wanting* to entrust their navigation
> to a one-presentation-fits-all navigation bar. See Google Directory,
> IMDb, and Ask MetaFilter for examples of vastly differing navigation
> requirements that would suffer from being made consistent with each
> other. And see OS X's Expose, OmniWeb's thumbnails, and Firefox's Tab
> Sidebar extension for examples of features that benefit from Web sites
> being visually inconsistent with each other. Sometimes consistency is
> not a good thing.
And that too. :-)
> As Ian alluded to, it's been ten years, two months, and 22 days since
> the codification of <link>, and there is still no browser other than
> Lynx that supports <link> navigation reliably enough for authors to be
> able to rely on it. (iCab and Opera don't count, because their toolbars
> can be turned off. The Firefox extension has the same problem, only
> moreso.) You and I both tried to get <link> navigation off the ground,
> in our separate ways,
Much as I did. See bugzilla bug 2800. (I filed that nearly six years ago.)
> but -- like Ian -- I really think it's a lost cause now. Let it go. :-)
Glad you agree!
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg