- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:51:25 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 21/08/2009, at 6:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> I know where you're coming from. >> However, rev's semantics are *extremely* muddy and effectively >> format-specific; I think we're already at the point where it is > > Really? Pointer? There was a long discussion about this; as I remember it, different versions of HTML have different wordings of what rev is, leading people to wildly varying understandings of what it means. I can dig up references if you like, but it was discussed quite extensively. >> re-defined every time it's used. And, defining it syntactically in >> Link without defining its semantics doesn't seem like the right >> thing to do. > > Minimally we should ensure that it's not used as a name for future > extension parameters if that use would conflict with the text in RFC > 2068. >> Thus, it seems to me that the options are to either take it out of >> the syntax completely, or leave it in the syntax for the sole >> purpose of deprecating it (since we can't really define crisp >> semantics for it). > > If these are the choices, I'd definitively prefer the latter Anne? Ian? IIRC both of your requested the removal of "rev"; how do you feel about leaving it in the grammar but strengthening the text to clarify that implementations are not required to interpret / use it? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 01:52:07 UTC