[whatwg] WA1: Link type "index"
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Nov 5 09:22:12 PST 2007
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, fantasai wrote:
> I believe the 'index' link type definition isn't quite right, considering
> prior definitions of the term. It seems to me that 'index' would be more
> appropriate, given its prior definitions, for linking to things like CSS2.1's
> list of properties (Appendix F).
> I think that for the hierarchical root, 'top' (which was defined in HTML 3.2)
> is more appropriate, both historically and by virtue of its English
> I also think that 'contents' and 'toc' should not be equated with 'top'
> they are not always the same thing. I would expect 'toc' or 'contents' from
> to link to
> but 'top' to link to
> http://developer.mozilla.org/ , i.e. the homepage of the website.
>  http://fantasai.tripod.com/qref/Appendix/LinkTypes/ltdef.html#index
>  http://fantasai.tripod.com/qref/Appendix/LinkTypes/ltdef.html#top
While I agree with the theoretical distinction, I don't really see that
any practical problem would be solved by separating these into different
semantics. The spec just uses it to define document hierarchy.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg