Is there any *practical* use of writing, say,

<a href="book.pdf" type="application/pdf">

with a TYPE attribute?

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Andreas Prilop <prilop4321@trashmail.net> writes:

> Is there any *practical* use of writing, say,
>
> <a href="book.pdf" type="application/pdf">
>
> with a TYPE attribute?

If you do, you can use CSS to mark up pdf links differently from other
links.

a[type=application/pdf] {
before: url("pdf-image.png");
--

For instance.

--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/

Andreas Prilop wrote:

> Is there any *practical* use of writing, say,
>
> <a href="book.pdf" type="application/pdf">
>
> with a TYPE attribute?

Not much, but in addition to potential use in styling (with attribute
selectors, not supported by IE 6), they might be used for site management
e.g. to find all links to PDF files. Of course this requires software that
pays attention to such attributes.

Moreover, on Firefox and relatives, if the user right-clicks on a link and
selects "Properties", he will see information about the media type.

So not much, really.

Yucca

In article
<Pine.GSO.4.63.0808251633210.2568@s5b004.rrzn.un i-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <prilop4321@trashmail.net> wrote:

> Is there any *practical* use of writing, say,
>
> <a href="book.pdf" type="application/pdf">
>
> with a TYPE attribute?

Yes: <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/WWW/userfriendlierhyperlinks/>.

--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/%7Etekelenb/>

Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0808251633210.2568@s5b004.rrzn.un i-hannover.de>,
> Andreas Prilop <prilop4321@trashmail.net> wrote:
>
>> Is there any *practical* use of writing, say,
>>
>> <a href="book.pdf" type="application/pdf">
>>
>> with a TYPE attribute?
>
> Yes: <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/WWW/userfriendlierhyperlinks/>.

Interesting page, Sander.

I realize the page is a bit old and so you may not want to change it,
but since it *is* on the WWW (and you're pointing to it in 2008), maybe
you'd like to consider a few of my remarks, respectfully submitted:

1. It seems like a cool idea to me for you to point to a list of MIME
types. I guess this would be the place:
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/>. Or maybe there's a
better list somewhere. (Assuming "MIME types" is really the appropriate
term. I see e.g. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_media_type>.)

2. I believe "dependant" should be spelled "dependent". See
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18...dependant.html .

3. The word "known" is missing an "n". Search for "kown".

I'm still poking around the site and, while I see it's a bit old, it
looks interesting. (BTW, I wish more Web authors would so
conscientiously date their publishings.)

HAND.


--
John
Possessive "its" has no apostrophe. Even on the Internet.
Pedants could rule the world and make it a better place, if the rest of
you would just *understand*.

On 2008-08-26, John Hosking <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:
> Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
[...]
> 2. I believe "dependant" should be spelled "dependent". See
> http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18...dependant.html .

No, dependant is acceptable, as probably a UK variant since it is more
like French.

It's a bit like "advertize" which was being quibbled over the other
day-- in UK English "advertise" is also acceptable.

Many of those optional variant UK spellings are basically French.
"dependent" and "advertize" are closer to the original Latin and Greek
respectively.

Ben C wrote:

>probably a UK variant

>variant UK spellings

I tend to think of the UK spelling as being the standard, and the
US as being the variant -- and I was born and raised in the USA.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

On 2008-08-26, Guy Macon <http> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ben C wrote:
>
>>probably a UK variant
>
>>variant UK spellings
>
> I tend to think of the UK spelling as being the standard, and the
> US as being the variant -- and I was born and raised in the USA.

I say "variant" UK spellings because dependent and advertize are both
also correct in UK English and in my opinion preferred.

On 26 Aug, 15:07, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:

> I tend to think of the UK spelling as being the standard, and the
> US as being the variant -- and I was born and raised in the USA.

There are (largely) two sorts of divergent spellings:
* 17th century spellings that the US has preserved and the UK has
shifted.
* Webster's fiddling 8-(

Guy Macon wrote:
> I tend to think of the UK spelling as being the standard, and the
> US as being the variant -- and I was born and raised in the USA.

In most cases where US and UK usage of English differs, the US version
is often (perhaps usually) closer to the original. I suspect this is
because the US was more isolated than the UK for much of its history.

British English has always been strongly influenced by our European
neighbours, and in the past, colonies.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk