Re: rel="self", rev="made"

NB: Personal view and all.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:53:51 +0100, Frank Ellermann  
<hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I'm not too happy with the proposed rev="made" solution,
> old browsers won't know that rel="author" is the same idea.
> But after all deprecating 'rev' makes sense.

The rev attribute was dropped because the Google content survey showed  
that authors did not quite understand how it worked and also because every  
rev attribute relation can be expressed as rel attribute relation.


> I wonder why HTML5 doesn't adopt the (atom) rel="self".  IMO
> rel="self" is very near to rel="bookmark", you could say that
> the last thing HTML5 needs is a new synonym for this relation.

Or maybe the problem is with Atom:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links


> Some obnoxious browsers insist on a "shortcut" relation in
> addition to "icon", apparently I get away with doing it in
> one link rel="shortcut icon" type="image/vnd.microsoft.icon".
> The HTML5 draft doesn't mention this madness, maybe it should.

Wouldn't it make more sense for Internet Explorer to simply recognize the  
"icon" relationship? That would be backwards compatible with what it  
currently does and make sites work that only use "icon".


> Other relations that *might* be interesting are "schema.DC",
> "openid.server", and "openid.delegate".  Restricting relations
> to what is listed on a WHATWG WIKI page is IMO a non-starter,
> even if that page knows "openid", but not "schema.DC".  Get a
> proper IANA registry with expert review, or something in this
> direction.

The HTML WG is looking into what to do here.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 13:00:52 UTC