- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 23:02:07 +0100
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote:
>
> ___________________________________
>
> Web Linking
> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06.txt
> - "The "rev" parameter has also been used for this
> by some formats, and is included here for
> compatibility with those uses, defined by this specification." Alas. It
> is a design feature, which allows {A chapter B} to be stated in A or B.
> And why define it in the syntax and not give its perfectly well defined
> semantics?
Alas? I thought you meant you are unhappy with it being included, but
reading a few times and looking up the original quote, I guess you are
expressing regret at the halfhearted nature of the inclusion:
The full paragraph (I suspect a copy/paste error in your mail) was:
"Normally, the relation type of a link is conveyed in the "rel"
parameter's value. The "rev" parameter has also been used for this
purpose historically by some formats, and is included here for
compatibility with those uses, but its use is not encouraged nor
defined by this specification."
I'd support a more enthusiastic specification of 'rev'. Without it,
people just end up inventing new relationship types with awkward
backwards-names that add no new meaning, like is_chapter_of...
cheers,
Dan
Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 22:02:41 UTC