- From: Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 23:56:13 -0700
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