Re: [draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06] rev

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> I know where you're coming from.
>
> However, rev's semantics are *extremely* muddy and effectively
> format-specific; I think we're already at the point where it is re-defined
> every time it's used. And, defining it syntactically in Link without
> defining its semantics doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
>
> Thus, it seems to me that the options are to either take it out of the
> syntax completely, or leave it in the syntax for the sole purpose of
> deprecating it (since we can't really define crisp semantics for it).
>

Perhaps a reference to RFC2068 would suffice along with a brief explanation
as to why it's removed (poorly defined, rarely used and/or often abused)?
Not that I necessarily have a problem with your earlier wording, nor do I
foresee interop problems arising.

Sam