- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:32:47 +1000
- To: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
OK, so in my current working draft I have rev in the syntax still, but with this statement: > The "rev" parameter has also been used for this purpose historically > by some formats, and MAY be accommodated as a link-extension, but > its use is neither encouraged nor defined by this specification. If that doesn't work for you, please propose text. On 25/08/2009, at 6:19 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Aug 24, 2009, at 5:42 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:43:26 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> I.e., define the semantics of rev in case it's received, but >>>> prohibit >>>> sending it? >>> >>> Right, exactly. >> >> This works for me too, though I hope it does not mean browsers >> suddenly have to start supporting something browsers never really >> properly implemented in the first place. (I think "rev" fails the >> rough consensus and running code mantra, but I might be missing >> something here.) > > rev="Made" was, at one point, supported by browsers (esp. Lynx). > I don't know if Lou carried that forward into Netscape et al. > > I don't have a problem with its deprecation. > > ....Roy > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:33:29 UTC