Steve Pugh said:
The same as the page. If a user is browsing a German language page
then they will expect to see links in German, whether they appear
as part of the page or as part of the links toolbar.
Maybe. This language issue is a bit debatable, and fairly theoretical
at present. But if the current page and linked page are in the same
language, then it's difficult to find a reason why the title attribute
would have a different language. In principle, though, it is possible
that the current page is in German and the start page is in English. In
that case, I would write the title text in English (and use lang="en"
in the <link> element). The title text, if shown to user, would the act
as a clue to the fact that the destination is in English. But one might
also use a bilingual title text.
No, they're used by users.
By a small number of users, I would say, unfortunately.
The link toolbar is displayed in Opera,
Mozilla and Lynx, amongst others, and can be installed as an addon
in Firefox and IE.
It's unfortunate that the feature was stripped away from Firefox (and
it isn't "on" in Mozilla by default, if I remember correctly).
Worse still, rel="start" (which is semi-defined in the HTML
specification) is virtually unsupported, or worse. Both Opera and
Mozilla treat it as denoting the home (index) page of the site.
A "Top" or "Home" button is generated. This is not what the spec says:
according to it, rel="start" means the <link> "refers to the first
document in a collection of documents". The natural interpretation,
especially reading
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/appendix/notes.html#h-B.4
is that this is meant to relate to a _sequential_ collection of
documents, e.g. corresponding to chapters of a book. To refer to a main
page, rel="contents" could be used, though the spec is vague.
Such confusion won't improve the popularity of using site navigation
I don't know if any search engine follows <link>s, but if they do
then they'll probably treat them as normal links.
Maybe. They _could_ use the better, though. I have no objection to
using theoretically useful markup if it does not have any known
drawbacks; it might become useful some day.
But in practical authoring, <link> is fairly irrelevant (except for
referring to external style sheets of course).