Re: Marking PDF links

In article <thjbt1hsq96bmo3li2jg51v96gff98qj2l@xxxxxxx>,
Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:46:29 +0100, Sander Tekelenburg
> <user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
> >> where does a browser find out the type attribute of a link?
> >
> >Why, in the HTML obviously. Just like with any other elements and
> >attributes. Did you read the page I referred you to? Did you look at its
> >HTML?
> No, not "obviously". That scheme has no automation

{confused} What sort of "automation" are you looking for?

> unless there is
> somewhere locally a table of extensions.

"extensions"? (Do you mean file name extensions? What is the relevance
of that?)

> You might as well tag with
> ordinary classes.

Yes, you can, but if you're going to add classes, you might as well add
type attributes. Type attributes actually have meaning on the Web, plus
this way you avoid 'CLASS-soup'. Personally I prefer to add as little
DIVs, SPANs, classes and IDs as is possible - keep the HTML clean and
make use of CSS selectors to target things.

> You still have to manually assign the types in the
> markup.

Less so than you have to manually add classes. My argument for using the
type attribute instead is not only that it adds more value than just
being a CSS selector, but also that automated Web publishing systems
could easily insert type attributes automagically - something they can't
do with classes. Thus using the type attribute provides a much better
opportunity for an automated authoring approach then using classes.


> MIME types normally come from the server.

MIME types are MIME types. Servers serve them through Content-Type
headers and before they do, they look them up through whatever mechanism
the server's local environment provides for that (which does not have to
be through file name extensions - for instance, on a Mac a server might
use the system's type/creator database).


> Further the author of the page did not show markup, just styles, other
> than via view source.

What's too hard about viewing the source?

> Further his examples did not work

"work" in the environment of the Web is extremely tool-dependant. If the
tool you used didn't 'work', then maybe that tool doesn't work.

The bottom of that page lists some browsers that *do* support this. Did
you see that? Didn't it make you think that perhaps the browser you were
using might not be working?

> , so it was not
> obvious he even did anything in the markup.

The page explains how to "target the type attribute", big header,
through CSS and shows two examples. How then can it not be obvious that
the HTML contains type attributes?

> Ideally he would have given a concrete example in addition to the BNF
> of both a style and markup. When you talk about the "type" of
> something you could be talking in the ordinary English sense, about
> the extension, about a type derived, or about a literal TYPE tag.

Indeed. Therefore, at that page I don't just vaguely speak of "type",
but of "type attributes" - each and every time.

Sander Tekelenburg, <>