W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2006

[whatwg] Where did the "rev" attribute go?

From: Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 23:56:13 -0700
Message-ID: <84ce626f0607082356i2b4a7150la56c49b4521b56d2@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Matthew,

That clears things up a bit.

But, if the intent is to really get rid of confusion then....  There's
actually 2 things I noticed confuse people.

#1: That the label you pick for the "rel" (or "rev") needs to be a noun.  (I
do understand why... at least I think I do... so that you can use the same
label in the "class" attribute.  But it makes things difficult for some
people.)

#2: That "rel" (and "rev") represent a relation between the two.  Often
people seem to want to "classify" what's at the end of the "href".  (Instead
of specifying a relation.)  Perhaps a new attribute is needed.  Perhaps
"hrefclass".


See ya

On 7/8/06, Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>    You make the argument that people might be using |rev| intentionally
> for some values and the the statistical method used by Goggle doesn't
> make that determination. Let's look at the two most common uses.
>
>    If you look at |rev="made"|, the most common use of |rev|, it's
> pretty clear that the use is intentional. However, |rev="made"| is
> pretty much equivalent to |rel="author"|, which is nearly as common, so
> the impact of eliminating |rev="made"| is minimal. If you look at the
> following link, note that |rev="made"| is the only use of |rev|
> mentioned, by the way:
>
> http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/wilbur/head/link.html
>
>    The second most common usage is |rev="stylesheet"|. Since CSS style
> sheets don't use HTML, let alone <a> and <link>, we can safely assume
> that this is, in fact, either the result of confusion by the author or a
> spelling type, and as you pointed out, a typo is unlikely. This really
> does suggest a genuine problem with people not understanding the
> difference between |rel| and |rev|, since |rel="stylesheet"| is the most
> common use of |rel|. I really wish we could see more data on that, though.
>
>    One of the problems with |rev| is that it's supposed to share values
> with |rel|, but in reality many of these values are either have narrow
> use cases for |rev| or are completely unusable, such as "stylesheet" and
> "icon". In my estimation, this will eventually result in a proliferation
> of values that favor a specific value. In fact, that's what we've seen,
> since most values are |rel|-centric.
>
> Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> > For example, I tend to use rev-author, rev-comment, and rev-tag quite
> > [a lot]. These aren't typos; these are intentional. And I do understand
> > what each means and am using them properly.
>
>    None of the values you mention are defined in HTML 4.01, and
> considering you are the one asking for |rev| to be included in "HTML 5",
> I don't think you can consider yourself a typical author.
>
>


-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles @ reptile.ca
    supercanadian @ gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
 Make Television                                http://maketelevision.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20060708/bee7850f/attachment.htm>
Received on Saturday, 8 July 2006 23:56:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:47 UTC