Hyperlinks are defined as <a> only. What about <link>

[frivoal]

The navigation data section uses the following phrasing:

The collection of all hyperlinks (a elements) [...]
Which seems to imply the a hyperlink and an a element are the same thing. However, HTML defines hyperlinks as being created by:

• <a> with an href attribute
• <link> elements with an href and certain keywords in their rel attribute.
• <area> elements with an href attrbute

The current text should probably be rephrased

1. We should be explicit that <a> elements without href are not taken into account
2. We should either:
   1. use unambiguous phrasing that doesn't suggest <link> elements might be included
   2. explicitly include <link> elements (with the same semantics as hidden <a> elements?)
   3. put a note saying that <link> elements might are intentionally left out (and why)
3. We should either:
   1. use unambiguous phrasing that doesn't suggest <area> elements might be included
   2. explicitly include <area> elements (in the toc and reading order?)
   3. put a note saying that <area> elements might are intentionally left out (and why)

For <link> elements, I have no strong preference.

For <area> elements, I would suggest including them, as that may be useful in visual types of books. Let's say, for example, and Atlas could have a world map with clickable areas as its toc.

I'm happy to send a pull request once we agree on semantics.

[therealglazou]

Great comment. I think I made a mistake in that section: we should not say what is the Reading Order (RO) nor the Table of Contents (ToC). We should only say the RO and the ToC are the contents of the 'doc-toc' nav element and that UAs are free to either render it directly or recreate UI based on these contents, with the precision that only a and area elements do create references to content documents. What do you think?