I think that "alternate" makes sense in some
cases, but agree it
shouldn't be required. e.g. a weather widget linked from a
weather
service, or a stock quote widget from a stock quote service.
rel="alternate widget" would be ideal in those
situations.
Mark.
On 11/24/06, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt lachy.id.au> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> The current draft defines that
rel="alternate" should be used for
> autodiscovery of widgets [1]. I think that is a
mistake because a
> widget isn't necessarily an alternate representation of
the document.
> In fact, in most cases, it won't be. Consider a site
like Apple's
> Dashboard widget download page [2], which lists many
widgets for
> download, none of which are alternatives of that page.
>
> I propose that a new "widget" value be
defined for that purpose instead.
>
> <link rel="widget"
type="application/widget"
> href="/example.widget" title="An
Example Widget">
>
> I also think the value should be allowed on <a>
elements as well, and
> autodiscovery should work for such links. Since
authors are usually
> going to include a link to the widget somewhere in the
page, it's
> redundant to require that each one also be specified
>
> <a href="/example.widget"
rel="widget">An Example Widget</a>
>
> The value also makes the use of the type attribute
optional, since UAs
> can just recognise the widget value.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-widgets-20061109/#autod
iscovery
> [2] http://www.
apple.com/downloads/dashboard/
>
> --
> Lachlan Hunt
> http://lachy.id.au/
>
>
|