W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Fwd: Status of Link header

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:55:12 +0200
Message-ID: <48D787A0.7010401@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> Forgot to forward this...
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Tantek Celik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
>> Date: 12 September 2008 6:53:53 PM
>> To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
>> Subject: Re: Status of Link header
>> Reply-To: tantek@cs.stanford.edu
>>
>> FWIW I'd suggest *not* including the rev attribute due to rampant 
>> author misunderstanding/misuse. We've decided to deprecate it 
>> microformats and not use it for anything new:
>>
>> http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-faq#Should_rev_even_be_used

I agree that "rev" is problematic.

However, it *is* in HTML4 and RFC2068, so I think it would be better to 
keep it in.

If people need "rev" (when there's no inverse relation defined), they 
will use it anyway, right?

 > ...

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 11:55:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:54 GMT