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