Specs *and* publishers/consumers/implementations of rel-enclosure exist (see aforementioned wiki page). And the name is based on re-using the existing term with the same semantic from the Atom spec.
Sorry but the paint on that bikeshed dried a long time ago in an IETF working group far away. ;) Tantek -----Original Message----- From: Peter Kasting <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:20:54 To: <[email protected]> Cc: Glenn Maynard<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; Jonas Sicking<[email protected]>; whatwg<[email protected]>; Darin Fisher<[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [whatwg] a rel=attachment On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tantek Çelik <[email protected]>wrote: > * existing rel="enclosure" spec - download the link when clicked/activated. I object to rel="enclosure" purely on naming grounds. It is completely unintuitive. I don't find the fact that a spec exists for it a compelling reason to use it. (Specs exist for lots of things, many of them bad.) PK
