[tantek]unfortunately even in that latter scenario, we've seen it become one particularly dominant implementation does what it wants, and other implementations have to confirm to the dominant implementation rather than the spec
[tantek]Like it's fine to have a login link, then that should be rel=login or something. But if a rel=edit link prompts the user to login, that's deceptive design
[tantek]hmm, looks like on a Wikipedia page it is picking up a false positive of a link to Help:Contents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents). I did a view source and found this: <a href="/wiki/Help:Contents" title="Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia"><span>Help</span></a> - is the word "edit" in the title attribute throwing it off?
[tantek]feedback two: would help with user expectation if hovering over the pencil icon showed the link in the status pane (lower left I think) and the tooltip should say "Edit this page" (not "Edit button") similar to have the star icon tooltip says "Bookmark this page"
trwnhinteresting, i would think that it's fine to require authorization to edit a resource > if a rel=edit link prompts the user to login, that's deceptive design
balintmy'all how do we feel about using <select> for navigation? is it semantically correct and accessible for that purpose? spec simply says "The select element represents a control for selecting amongst a set of options" which is quite broad a definition so it _feels_ like that use case would fit, but i'm a bit hesitant given it's commonly associated with forms where the mere interaction of selecting doesn't usually trigger an immediate change in state
[tantek]trwnh, yes, it's "fine to require authorization to edit a resource" but not to deceive the user with implying that such an "authorization link" is an "edit link". It's always deception to make the user do something other than what the label of the link or button says it does.
[tantek]like "edit", oh no wait, you have to login, then accept this TOS, then give us your phone number just in case for recovery or some such nonsense, then watch this intro video about how to edit etc. etc. none of those are ok
[tantek]not even one intermediate step is ok. if your site presents an edit button, the user expectation is that clicking that will immediately present them with an editable text field (or fields) or option to upload a new image etc.
capjamesg[tantek] Your PR is approved, merged, and now live in the latest release. I'm not sure if I need to add something to make the extension auto-update, but in any case you can remove and download again to get the update.
[tantek]One thing to brainstorm is a blocklist of domains that improperly use rel=edit eg either with requiring an extra step (like login, the more I think about it, the more I think we should make this required in the spec)
Loqi rel-edit is a microformat for linking a page to a URL that lets you edit a page https://indieweb.org/rel-edit
[social] [capjamesg] Congrats on getting edit-button-rel live
[tantek] Btw capjamesg, re: PHP https://accesto.com/blog/is-php-still-relevant-in-2025/
[KevinMarks] @LadyBanana unmung works on your site too (python parser) https://unmung2.appspot.com/mf2?url=https%3A%2F%2Fellefson.dev&html=&pretty=on
balintm i did not know this was a thing now. neat! https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Share_API