Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt

On 05/02/2010, at 11:24 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> HTML5 doesn't have rev anymore anyway (well, unless the WG changes this again)
> So why don't we just say that "rev" means what HTML2 used to say, and be done with it?

Because (IMO) implementation experience has shown that rev= is horribly confusing* to developers, and will cause more problems than it solves; it's much better to just register a different relation (even if that does offend those who like tidiness). 

I'd be OK with putting it in the BNF, giving the HTML2 explanation, and deprecating it in prose, though. 

* For those who dispute this, have a look at blog and other discussions of rev=canonical; it tripped up a lot of people.

Mark Nottingham

Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 06:14:55 UTC