[whatwg] Absent rev?

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Martin McEvoy <martin at weborganics.co.uk>wrote:

> 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


Correct, it is rubbish.  Why would you say that?  It clearly doesn't
communicate what you want, even with the older semantics.  In html4 you
would want either rev="author" or rel="made".


> 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....


You are misunderstanding quite severely.  @rel still has the semantics of a
forward link.  rel="author" has identical meaning in html4 and html5 - it
indicates that the linking page's author is represented by the linked page.
The difference now is that, rather than use rev="author" for the reverse
semantic (the linked page's author is represented by the linking page), you
would use rel="made" (the linking page made the linked page).

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*


At worst, this merely means that "author" and "made" are not antonyms. This
doesn't justify @rev, it just means that you want a more general term than
"author".  Replace it with "creator" or "maker" or what have you.

~TJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081119/fe5220c0/attachment.htm>

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 12:28:49 UTC