W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2008

[whatwg] Absent rev?

From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:08:10 +0000
Message-ID: <4924722A.7000508@weborganics.co.uk>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>   
>> It basically says that the whole premise that HTML5 should drop *rev* 
>> (a) because authors use it wrong, (b)  Many authors use rev-stylesheet 
>> wrong, is a MYTH and an inaccurate assessment of the *rev* attribute
>>     
>
> As others have noted, the data does in fact show that rev="" is rarely 
> used for anything other than rev=made, and is, with the exception of 
> rev=made, usually used incorrectly when used at all.
>
> The idea of removing it is to make validators more able to report these 
> mistakes, thus helping authors write better HTML.
>   
OK then...
> Despite your claims to the contrary, given the way that the "rel" 
> attribute and the related keywords are defined, rel=author does in fact 
> convey the semantics that rev=made did.
>   
No It doesn't Reverse and Inverse properties are key factors of any 
Semantics without both @rev and @rel  there is hardly any semantics at 
all just a one way stream of information, which most of the time you 
have to guess what the Authors intentions were.

rel=author on the whole only relates to published documents,  rel=made 
relates to  Documents, Music, Photos, Videos, Sunday Lunch! Literaly 
anything that can be *made*
> Removing "rev" doesn't affect previous pages, as they continue to be valid 
> HTML4 if they were valid HTML4 before, and UAs can continue to support 
> those semantics for as long as they want to support those pages.
>   
I cant see anyone abandoning HTML4 soon at least not in my 
lifetime....but you never know....
> Furthermore, since the definition of "rel" in HTML5 allows relationships 
> in either direction to be defined, there is no need anymore for a separate 
> rev="" attribute.
>   
So essentially @rel in html5 is breaking the semantics of @rel just 
because it cant deal with @rev?
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>   
>> There are 1517 instances of @rev
>>
>> of those:
>>
>> "made" occurs 83% of the time (1259 instances)
>> "stylesheet" occurs 8.2% of the time (124 instances)
>> The rest occur 8.9% of the time (135 instances)
>>     
>
> These numbers support removing rev="" based on the design principles we 
> are using for HTML5.
>   
>> the misuse of "stylesheet" is trivial and only a matter of informing 
>> authors of their error
>>     
>
> Well, who's going to be doing the informing?

The publishers of HTML5

> Nobody did it in the past ten 
> years, why would they do it now?
>
>   
Nobody over the last 10 years informed Authors very about Validation and 
Accessibility, but they are at last getting to grips with it..
>> the fact that a high amount of authors are using rev-made is Inspiring 
>> to say the least, because every made link type is a claim of ownership, 
>> not authorship two totally different semantics.
>>     
>
> I believe it is unrealistic to expect authors to split semantics that 
> finely. 
They do...
> Authors who today use rev="made" could equally well use 
> rel="author" without loss of generality IMHO.
>   
OK then example:

I am the author of numerous websites and I decide (like many people do) 
to place some links on my homepage a portfolio If you like.
My Homepage is at : http://groovydeveloper.com/
Here is my link <a rel="author" href="http://somegroovysite.com/">Groovy 
Site</a>

Above Statement (In HTML4) says

<http://somegroovysite.com/> Authored  < http://groovydeveloper.com/>

Which Is rubbish its the other way round

The Same statement in HTML5 will say (because @rel is a reverse and 
inverse link type)

<http://somegroovysite.com/> Authored  < http://groovydeveloper.com/>
and
< http://groovydeveloper.com/>  Authored <http://somegroovysite.com/>

@rel seems to be redundant because describing the link with rel="author" 
doesn't actually tell you who the author of a is page you have to guess, 
the statement is at most only half correct and again not expressing any 
real semantics....


[edits]

> If there are redundant features that are only used 0.2% of the time, we 
> should probably remove them, yes. Are there any?
>   
A lot considering that the average website only uses 19 elements[1] How 
many are there in HTML5?

[1] http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/pages.html
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>   
>> That does not solve the "problem" of rev="made" because its not the same 
>> as rel="author"
>>
>> "author" can relate to multiple instances on a page saying "WE made 
>> this", an Author may have no control over who claims authorship of a 
>> page.
>>
>> "made" is usually a single point perspective, Its a way of authors 
>> claiming their own links in a statement saying "I made This".
>>     
>
> I don't understand your distinction. rev=made and rel=author are 
> interchangeable,
No I guess you don't :-)

>
> While I appreciate your feedback, I'm afraid that in this instance the 
> weight of the argument is more strongly in favour of dropping the 
> attribute, thus it has been dropped.
>   
Unfairly From what I can tell

Thanks for your help anyway

-- 
Martin McEvoy

http://weborganics.co.uk/
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 12:08:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:07 UTC