Re: <a footnote="proposal">

   I had always thought that the REV relationship means that the
   anchor head in which it occurred was asserting how the anchor tail
   linked to the head.

I'm happy to be corrected in this, but the terms "head" and "tail" are
not ones I've ever heard used in this context. You've got me a bit
puzzled now, because I'm not sure I understand what you're explaining.

   The REL relationship means that the anchor head was making an
   assertion on its link semantics to the anchor tail.

   REV, encoded in English, represents the asserting anchor head as
   the object and the anchor tail as the subject of the assertion.   
   <A REV="footnote" HREF="refs/fn.html">This tail is my footnote</A>
					    subj      obj

   REL, encoded in English, has the asserting anchor head as the
   subject and the anchor tail as the object of the assertion.
   <A REL="footnote" HREF="pg.html">I am this tail's footnote.</A>
				    subj   object

   REV = An "it is my" statement.
   REL = An "I am its" statement.

This is the precise opposite of how I have always seen REL and REV
used, and seems to be semantically at variance with the "meaning"
implied by RELated and REVerse-related. REV is in effect the reflexive
form of REL.

For example:

   <link rev="parent" href="">
   <link rel="child" href="">
   <link rev="made" href=""> (ie "made by me")
   <link rel="author" href=""> (ie "I made it")

In a document mythesis.html:
   <a href="alpha_authors.html" rel="bibliography">
   <a href="dept_index.html" rev="theses">

In other words, REL is an "I made/own this object" and REV is a "this
object made/owns me".

If this is not the case, then is there some simple and unambiguous
document which explains EXACTLY what they mean, in terms that can be
used to explain it to users?


Received on Tuesday, 15 October 1996 17:20:43 UTC