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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/#autodiscovery
[2] http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
