W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2009

Re: On reading material for f2f - Web Linking

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 23:02:07 +0100
Message-ID: <eb19f3360912051402gb9de78sf8be1263ac5e1fd2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote:
>
> ___________________________________
>
>            Web Linking
> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06.txt

> - "The "rev" parameter has also been used for this
>  by some formats, and is included here for
>   compatibility with those uses,   defined by this specification." Alas.  It
> is a design feature, which allows    {A chapter B} to be stated in A or B.
>  And why define it in the syntax and not give its perfectly well defined
> semantics?

Alas? I thought you meant you are unhappy with it being included, but
reading a few times and looking up the original quote, I guess you are
expressing regret at the halfhearted nature of the inclusion:

The full paragraph (I suspect a copy/paste error in your mail) was:

"Normally, 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 is included here for
   compatibility with those uses, but its use is not encouraged nor
   defined by this specification."

I'd support a more enthusiastic specification of 'rev'. Without it,
people just end up inventing new relationship types with awkward
backwards-names that add no new meaning, like is_chapter_of...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 22:02:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:18 GMT