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

RE: On reading material for f2f - Web Linking

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:01:54 -0700
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723437852938B9@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
It is being dropped/deprecated for the same reason the Link header was original dropped from HTTP: lack of implementation experience. As Julian noted, (and I think the number is around 90%,) the most common current use of rev is a typo (rev="stylesheet"). The -06 language should be fixed, but 'rev' has not proved to be worth the confusion it create.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:32 AM
> To: Jonathan Rees
> Cc: Dan Brickley; Tim Berners-Lee; TAG List
> Subject: Re: On reading material for f2f - Web Linking
> 
> 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 19:02:14 GMT

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