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

Re: On reading material for f2f - Web Linking

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:32:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4B1BDC83.30000@gmx.de>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Let's see... we've seen three variants of "rev"...
> 
> 1. HTML 4 and RFC 2068 say the A link rev=B means B link rel=A.
> 
> 2. The -06 and -07 drafts say that "rev" is deprecated but when used
> means the same as "rel". This is not just unenthusiastic; it's
> antisocial.
 > ...

I think that's unintended effect of editing this part again and again. 
This is a bug that needs to be fixed.

> 3. The HTML5 draft (I consulted "Editor's Draft 6 December 2009")
> incompatibly prohibits use of "rev".
> 
> I agree with you and Tim that the original HTML 4 / RFC 2068 version
> is the best of the three, since it eliminates the need to register the
> inverse of relationship foo, if foo is already registered. Obviously
> some other people have come to conclusion that it's better to double
> the number of relationships. I wonder why.
> ...

I think the reasons were

1) evidence that link/@rev use in HTML documents frequently is 
unintentionally (as a typo),

2) little correct use of @rev, and the assumption that defining more 
precise relations is superior to have @rev (see mail thread around 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008OctDec/0321.html>).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 16:32:44 GMT

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