At http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#type-links, the explanation of
the Alternate link type read "Designates substitute versions for the
document in which the link occurs. When used together with the lang
attribute, it implies a translated version of the document ...."
Shouldn't that say "hreflang attribute"?

Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> At http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#type-links, the
> explanation of the Alternate link type read "Designates substitute
> versions for the document in which the link occurs. When used
> together with the lang attribute, it implies a translated version
> of the document ...." Shouldn't that say "hreflang attribute"?[/color]

Yes. This is even mentioned in the "Errata":
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html4-updates/errata#entry-9

(The "Errata" document is not normative. Besides, it's effectively
closed. I don't think they'll ever add anything to it, no matter what
internal inconsistencies might be reported.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is even mentioned in the "Errata":
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html4-updates/errata#entry-9[/color]

A sheet of "errata" makes sense for a book when it has already
been printed - but on the WWW??

--
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Denmark.
And therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Jeg er dansker!"

Andreas Prilop wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>This is even mentioned in the "Errata":
>>http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html4-updates/errata#entry-9[/color]
>
>
> A sheet of "errata" makes sense for a book when it has already
> been printed - but on the WWW??
>[/color]

I know it seems weird, but even on the WWW the notion of a permanent
document to which subsequent references are guaranteed to remain valid
persists. Otherwise, welcome to Orwell's world.

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:31:39 -0500 from Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>:[color=blue]
> Andreas Prilop wrote:[color=green]
> > A sheet of "errata" makes sense for a book when it has already
> > been printed - but on the WWW??[/color]
>
> I know it seems weird, but even on the WWW the notion of a permanent
> document to which subsequent references are guaranteed to remain valid
> persists. Otherwise, welcome to Orwell's world.[/color]

We could easily have both: the original document with separate
errata, and an updated one with the errata merged in.

"They tried it, but it made too much sense." -- Sgt Fish, on /Barney
Miller/

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

Stan Brown wrote:[color=blue]
> Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:31:39 -0500 from Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>:
>[color=green]
>>Andreas Prilop wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>A sheet of "errata" makes sense for a book when it has already
>>>been printed - but on the WWW??[/color]
>>
>>I know it seems weird, but even on the WWW the notion of a permanent
>>document to which subsequent references are guaranteed to remain valid
>>persists. Otherwise, welcome to Orwell's world.[/color]
>
>
> We could easily have both: the original document with separate
> errata, and an updated one with the errata merged in.[/color]

True, just as they have separate pages for each variety of HTML with
their own URLs, and then the URL http://www.w3.org/TR/html that points
to the latest.