Re: <a footnote="proposal">

Scott E. Preece (preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com)
Wed, 16 Oct 1996 08:29:15 -0500


Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 08:29:15 -0500
Message-Id: <199610161329.IAA05350@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
From: "Scott E. Preece" <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
To: pflynn@curia.ucc.ie
CC: marc@ckm.ucsf.edu, www-html@w3.org, html-wg@w3.org
In-reply-to: Peter Flynn's message of 15 Oct 1996 22:22:22 +0100
Subject: Re: <a footnote="proposal">

 From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
| 
| In a document mythesis.html:
|    <a href="alpha_authors.html" rel="bibliography">
|    <a href="dept_index.html" rev="theses">
| 
| In other words, REL is an "I made/own this object" and REV is a "this
| object made/owns me".
---

I don't think "made/own" describes the most usual cases.  I'd suggest
reading them as REL="it is my x" and REV="I am its x", where "it" should
be replaced with the URL of the target and x should be replaced by the
text of the rel or rev.

So,
	 <a href="alpha_authors.html" rel="bibliography">
would be read "alpha_authors.html is my bibliography".

Another way to look at it is that the anchor (or link) expresses a
relationship between two resources and the REL or REV describes which
side of the relationship plays the named role.  REL says the target
plays the named role; REV says the source (the resource containing the
anchor or link) plays the named role.

This is an arbitrary rule - you just have to learn it.  The authors of
HTML could have chosen the opposite reading just as easily.

scott

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com