RE: Feedback for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03

> On Dec 5, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
> > Some recent feedback on Link Header highlights a serious issue with
> > that
> > workaround. Even if HTML5 drops "rev", it doesn't change the semantics
> > established in HTML4, RDFa, and other uses that "rel" and "rev" assert
> > outbound and inbound links, respectively.
> 
> On December 06, 2008 12:14 AM Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Umm, no, they don't assert inbound links.  The only deployed value
> for rev (rev="Made") defines a link from this representation of a
> resource to its maker.  The only thing directional about it is the
> relation name itself, which implies an out relation, but it is the
> relation that is reversed by rev=name, not the link.  In your words,
> rev asserts an inbound relationship as an outbound link.

Now I'm confused. Julian Reschke in his message quoted from the HTML4 spec
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12.3.1>:

**********
"12.3.1 Forward and reverse links

The rel and rev attributes play complementary roles -- the rel attribute
specifies a forward link and the rev attribute specifies a reverse link.

Consider two documents A and B.

Document A:       <LINK href="docB" rel="foo">

Has exactly the same meaning as:

Document B:       <LINK href="docA" rev="foo">

Both attributes may be specified simultaneously."

(Note the last sentence)
***********

That matches my understanding of rel and rev - if resource A has a link to
resource B (a link being "an arc of some kind connecting the two resource
nodes"), a rel attribute on that link describes an arc from A to B, and a
rev attribute on that link describes an arc from B to A.

Do I have that wrong?

=Drummond

Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 05:00:17 UTC