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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:54:37 +1000
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DF882596-5C39-47DB-AFDC-3956E662831D@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
My copy of the draft (not yet on mnot.net) currently has:

       <t>The relation type of a link is conveyed in the "rel"  
parameter's value. The "rev" parameter has also
		been used for this purpose historically by some formats, and MAY be  
accommodated as a link-extension, but
		its use is not encouraged nor defined by this specification.</t>

On 21/08/2009, at 5:48 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke 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.
>> HTML5 does define behaviour for rev="", it just makes it non- 
>> conforming.
> Sorry, I missed that (<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#attr-link-rev 
> >).
> I think it would be even better if there was a single sentence  
> explaining what it means (or used to mean).
> BR, Julian

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 21:55:27 UTC

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