- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 23:34:08 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Roy T. Fielding, Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:20:13 -0800: > On Dec 29, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> Hi Mark, >> >> When you, Roy or anyone else makes bold claims about "confusion" about >> what HTML 4 says, then it would be extremely helpful if you could >> provide an exegesis that that demonstrate those claims. >> >> I followed your pointer to Roy's message - and what did I see? I saw >> hat Roy has not read HTML 4 correctly. HTML 4 says _exactly_ what Roy >> says, namely: Links are not reversible. But relationships are. (That >> relationships are reversible doesn't mean that the _words_ for those >> relationships are reversible - @rev doesn't create antonyms ... of >> course.) > > I doubt that your reinterpretation and rephrasing of what HTML4 > says is going to enlighten my interpretation of what the spec > actually has written. I know what rel and rev does in reality, > and that agrees with your [2]. I perceived Mark to say that there were differenced between your understanding of reality and my understanding of HTML 4. I am glad that you confirm your understanding of reality and my understanding of HTML 4 are equal. > What I disagreed with is the > specific words used to define that reality in HTML4, which > has been misinterpreted by *other* spec writers to mean > that the link is reversed (not the semantics), and hence the > discussion about it in the Link draft. Sure, the wording in HTML 4 is suboptimal and easy to misinterpret. But it is still possible to make sense of it, if there is will. >> I have provided an exegesis of what HTML 4 says which demonstrates that >> this is so [1][2]. I produced it without knowing about Roy's message - >> I came to this conclusion _solely_ by reading HTML 4. >> >> It is indeed true, also, that HTML 4 could have used a clearer wording. >> But if one reads HTML 4 the same way that HTML 5 says one should read >> HTML 5 [3], then it ought to be pretty obvious that there is no other >> possible interpretation of HTML 4 than the one Roy have. In other >> words: HTML 4 is says the same that previous specifications has said. >> >> If you or anyone have another interpretation of HTML 4, then please >> provide something that makes your interpretation credible. Or else we >> should put those claims aside as unfounded. > > Why is that even remotely relevant? The claims exist whether or not > they can be demonstrated false. Moreover, you just replied to someone > who claimed the exact opposite of your interpretation of the very > same words, so clearly someone is confused. HTML 4 is blamed from all corners for being unclear. It is relevant to have an as exact as possible interpretation of HTML 4. The FUD about the quality of HTML 4 is used to remove @rev from HTML 5 _and_ from the LINKS draft. > HTML5 says under hyperlink > > For <a> and <area> elements that represent hyperlinks, the > relationship between the document containing the hyperlink > and the destination resource indicated by the hyperlink is > given by the value of the element's rel attribute, which > must be a set of space-separated tokens. The allowed values > and their meanings are defined below. The rel attribute has > no default value. If the attribute is omitted or if none of > the values in the attribute are recognized by the user agent, > then the document has no particular relationship with the > destination resource other than there being a hyperlink > between the two. > > and something different under link. Neither can be interpreted > with any sense of conviction because "resource" is used in several > contradictory ways in the spec, as is "default" and "context" > (presumably in this case because Ian decided to remove the notion > of an anchor as a conceptual framework for describing links). The "resource" issue is, I guess, linked to this subject. But I think you have a far more important point when you mention the failure of the HTML 5 draft to talk about "anchor". The so called unclear HTML 4 starts its links chapter by explaining how the anchors (the source anchor and the destination anchor) sets the links direction. And nowhere does HTML 4 claim that what is source and what is destination (= direction) changes just because you apply the @rev attribute. > In any case, rev is gone from HTML5, and therefore the description > of its semantics is no longer in the draft. It is part of HTML 5 in the form of the HTML+RDFa draft. > I think the issue in the subject is solely about who owns the > relation registry. Since the relations must be independent of > media type, I think it is obvious that HTML cannot own the > registry. YMMV. I'm sorry if you feel that this should have been discussed under another subject. >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0409 >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0410 >> [3] >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#how-to-read-this-specification > > BTW, [3] is lame, even if read as a sarcastic joke. Of course. But, still, HTML 4 makes much more sense when that reading method is applied. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 22:34:45 UTC