Re: On reading material for f2f - Web Linking

Let's see... we've seen three variants of "rev"...

1. HTML 4 and RFC 2068 say the A link rev=B means B link rel=A.

2. The -06 and -07 drafts say that "rev" is deprecated but when used
means the same as "rel". This is not just unenthusiastic; it's
antisocial.

3. The HTML5 draft (I consulted "Editor's Draft 6 December 2009")
incompatibly prohibits use of "rev".

I agree with you and Tim that the original HTML 4 / RFC 2068 version
is the best of the three, since it eliminates the need to register the
inverse of relationship foo, if foo is already registered. Obviously
some other people have come to conclusion that it's better to double
the number of relationships. I wonder why.

Jonathan

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> 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 Sunday, 6 December 2009 15:54:12 UTC