- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:37:35 +1100
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
BTW, this is the text I have currently;
In section 5:
<t>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.</t>
In the HTML appendix:
<t>HTML4 also has a "rev" parameter for links that allows a link's
relation to be reversed. The Link header
has a "rev" parameter to allow the expression of these links in HTTP
headers, but its use is not encouraged,
due to the confusion this mechanism causes as well as conflicting
interpretations among HTML versions.</t>
On 10/12/2008, at 8:37 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> We should remove the mistaken usage of "outbound" and "inbound" and
> the definition of rev should be in section 4 (and deprecated because
> experience has shown that reversing semantics is less understandable
> by people than choosing inverse relation names).
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 05:38:15 UTC