Post #1307943

2025-11-15 11:31 UTC

@jyasskin My kneejerk reaction: -- but probably there are more thought-through approaches around. Having something specified and supported would be great.

Replies (2)

@jyasskin@hachyderm.io 2025-11-15 13:29

@chrysn Interesting: `rel=alternate` isn't body-ok on its own (https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#body-ok), but it can be an `itemprop` for an object declared on an ``. [Edit: er, oops, s must have exactly one of `rel` or `itemprop`.] I can imagine that some RDF property would express this, although because RDF edges aren't ordered, there would have to be an independent definition of what order to try the fallbacks. I suspect it'll wind up too verbose to be useful, but it makes sense to describe it as an alternative to consider. Want to send a PR to https://github.com/jyasskin/handling-unreliable-links?

Open ##1307944
@hvdsomp@w3c.social 2025-11-16 11:43

@chrysn @jyasskin This RFC contains a nice analysis of the actual meaning of relation types like “alternate”, “bookmark”, “duplicate”, … https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8574.txt

Open ##1307945