W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: link header rev parameters, was: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

From: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:06:41 +0200
Message-ID: <21606dcf0908200606s440411d3je92969b814f27dde@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> ...
>>> The Link: header has a "rev" attribute. I would recommend dropping it for
>>> consistency with HTML5; we discovered in examining typical usage that
>>> people generally didn't understand how to use rev="", and it is redundant
>>> with rel="" anyway. If it is kept, then please define how it works.
>>> Allowing something but leaving it undefined is the worst of both worlds.
>>> (The ideal would be to define how it works but not allow it, IMHO.)
>> It was included because it's in the syntax of RFC2068, but I agree that
>> it's not desirable to perpetuate it. How do people feel about further
>> removing it (i.e., it will be an extension, not called out explicitly in the
>> syntax)?
>> ...
> I think that not mentioning it will cause both confusion ("where did it go
> and why?") and extra work (it being re-defined for certain relations).
> Thus it seems to me that the spec should document it in any case. If
> there's a consensus that it's a bad thing to use, we should add that to the
> documentation, essentially deprecating it.

Given the attribute is rarely used (and when it is it's generally abused -
e.g. rev=canonical) I would suggest that following HTML 5's example and
jumping straight to obsolesence is a better idea than deprecation.

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 13:07:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:51 UTC