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

Re: link header rev parameters

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:20:07 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Sam Johnston" <samj@samj.net>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uyypztnq64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:13:00 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Sam Johnston wrote:
>> ...
>> 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.
>> ...
> "deprecating" was the wrong term anyway; as there is no replacement  
> (except for defining reverse relations, and using them with "rel").
> HMTL5 imho goes too far in not mentioning it at all.

If we keep it the registry should have the distinction as well as some relations make no sense when reversed, see e.g. canonical above.

However I do not think we should keep it. I'd be fine with an appendix of some sorts explaining why it's gone.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 13:21:10 UTC

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