- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:32:03 +0100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote: > 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. > ... I think that's unintended effect of editing this part again and again. This is a bug that needs to be fixed. > 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. > ... I think the reasons were 1) evidence that link/@rev use in HTML documents frequently is unintentionally (as a typo), 2) little correct use of @rev, and the assumption that defining more precise relations is superior to have @rev (see mail thread around <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008OctDec/0321.html>). Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 16:32:44 UTC