W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2009

Re: On reading material for f2f - Web Linking

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:44:12 -0500
Cc: TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FD4FBB55-7138-4908-BD76-CBE1B0E87B25@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Yes, I was expressing regret that  rev=
was not documented at the same level as rel=.
I think rev= is a good thing.


On 2009-12 -05, at 17:02, Dan Brickley 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 Monday, 7 December 2009 00:41:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:31 UTC