- From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:01:54 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
It is being dropped/deprecated for the same reason the Link header was original dropped from HTTP: lack of implementation experience. As Julian noted, (and I think the number is around 90%,) the most common current use of rev is a typo (rev="stylesheet"). The -06 language should be fixed, but 'rev' has not proved to be worth the confusion it create. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Julian Reschke > Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:32 AM > To: Jonathan Rees > Cc: Dan Brickley; Tim Berners-Lee; TAG List > Subject: Re: On reading material for f2f - Web Linking > > 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 19:02:14 UTC