[whatwg] rel/rev for <form> ?

[ROBO Design]

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:17:27 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux  
<supercanadian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
<...>
>
> Let me ask you some questions.  (Your answers will help me know how to
> explain things better.)
>
>     * Do you see that "rel" and "rev" based formats have important
> uses beyond just keyboard shortcuts?

Yes, of course. That was just an example.

>     * Do you think that semantics embedded into HTML is important?

Yes.

>     * Do you think being able to provide semantics between 2 resources
> -- between 2 URI's -- is important?

Yes, but not really for <form>.

Reason: generally speaking, an URI specified in the ACTION attribute of  
the <form> is not a web page that shows general information, good for web  
crawlers nor the like. I wouldn't like bots going crazy in my <form>s :).

>     * Do you think that web crawler usage or "rel" and "rev" based
> formats is important?

Yes.

>     * Do you think that user script usage or "rel" and "rev" based
> formats is important?

Yes.

>     * Do you think that extension usage or "rel" and "rev" based
> formats is important?

Yes.

>     * Do you think that be able to use other HTTP methods, other than
> GET, is important?

In this case, not. The way I see it, web crawlers, extensions, user  
scripts, user agents and the like can use the URIs of any resource, based  
on the REL. For example, rel="author": this *should* give an URI to the  
author of the web page, but how would this work with a <form>? Would you  
require it to use POST or another method? Forms are more complex than  
simple links, they require user interaction (fill the fields and most  
likely a JavaScript on the page that validates the values).

Also, forms are not for "general availability", in the sense of ... web  
crawlers should *not* try to submit them (that's what the bad spam bots do  
when trying to post spam comments).

>     * Do you think that being able to attach semantics to resources --
> to URI's -- accessed through HTTP methods, other than GET, is
> important?

Yes.

>     * Do you think that being able to parameterize a "request" is  
> important?

Of course.

> (One thing though.  Re-reading my message over, it seems to kind of
> have a "rude" connotation.  But please note that is not my intent.)

True, but no problems :).

My general idea is this: I'm not against adding rel/rev to <form>, but I  
currently do not see any precise example of a use case.

Also, you need to take into consideration the implications of having  
rel/rev for <form>.

One last note, regarding your questions above: importance is relative.  
Some of the things you've mentioned are more important than others.

I'm sure that after having rel= for <form> people will come up with  
creative ideas.


-- 
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future