rel="next"

[Toby Inkster]

I'm adding some long overdue <link rel="next" /> elements (and prev, etc)
to my site.

The code for it has been in my home-made CMS for ages -- I just hadn't
added the data to the database.

I am although planning on adding some redundant text links (for those
browsers too stupid to fully support this feature introduced in HTML 2.0)
along these lines:

<a href="blah" title="Blah" rel="next">Next</a>

They will of course point to the same URL.

I can imagine I'll have a lot of fun with things like:

a[rel="next"]:after { content: "\21C9"; }
a[rel="prev"]:before { content: "\21C7"; }

My question is: will any browsers get confused by having a choice of two
elements with rel="next"?

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I'm adding some long overdue <link rel="next" /> elements (and prev,
etc) to my site.

The browser support might now be regarded as non-negligible, so that
might be of some use.

I am although planning on adding some redundant text links (for those
browsers too stupid to fully support this feature introduced in HTML
2.0) along these lines:

<a href="blah" title="Blah" rel="next">Next</a>

Well, is such a link redundant, or is the <link> element redundant then?
Why aren't Mozilla and Opera clever enough to understand rel="next" in
<a> elements if they are so bright with <link>?

(To be exact, HTML 2.0 explicitly said: "The semantics of link
relationships are not specified in this document." Besides, even HTML
3.2, or HTML 4.0 for that matter, did not normatively define the meanings
of rel attribute values.)

My question is: will any browsers get confused by having a choice of
two elements with rel="next"?

Maybe. But if some browser will be clever enough to understand rel="next"
in both elements, let's hope it'll be bright enough to recognize them a
duplicating the same thing.

 

[Toby Inkster]

I'm adding some long overdue <link rel="next" /> elements (and prev, etc)
to my site.

FWIW, example is here:
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/html-tutorial-1

It would be handy to know how well the arrows work in different people's
browsers. This I suppose depends on the browser itself, the OS and which
fonts they have installed. (I've checked in Lynx 2.8.3 and Opera 7.53 so
far and all looks good. Further testing later.)

 

[Michael Winter]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:28:27 +0100, Toby Inkster

[snip]

It would be handy to know how well the arrows work in different people's
browsers. This I suppose depends on the browser itself, the OS and which
fonts they have installed. (I've checked in Lynx 2.8.3 and Opera 7.53 so
far and all looks good. Further testing later.)

The links are fine in Mozilla 1.7.2, but it doesn't apply the CSS. Why?
I'm not entirely sure.

Validating the page shows errors:

<URL:http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/...yinkster.co.uk/html-tutorial-1&usermedium=all>

but they shouldn't have any impact (at least on this scale).

Mike

 

[Toby Inkster]

The links are fine in Mozilla 1.7.2, but it doesn't apply the CSS. Why?

Because it is stupid.

I've looked into this and for no apparent reason it seems to believe that
some of the CSS files were served with the "text/plain" MIME type (so it
ignores them), even though they are all really served as "text/css".

It is possible to correct Mozilla by typing in the URLs of the rogue CSS
files, hitting reload and then going back to the original page.

IE 4 and Opera 3.6 have no problems.

Thus I say that Mozilla is a stupid browser, inferior to IE 4 and Opera
3.6.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

FWIW, example is here:
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/html-tutorial-1

Nothing to do with the "next" link, but your site's text still overlaps
the menu at smaller font sizes:

http://ecritters.biz/tobyink.png

 

[tm]

Toby Inkster wrote:

Nothing to do with the "next" link, but your site's text still overlaps
the menu at smaller font sizes:

http://ecritters.biz/tobyink.png

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that separation is
spelled "separation".

 

[Toby Inkster]

Nothing to do with the "next" link, but your site's text still overlaps
the menu at smaller font sizes:
http://ecritters.biz/tobyink.png

Looks like it's caused by your minimum font size setting.