[whatwg] Absent rev?

[Martin McEvoy]

Hello...

Smylers wrote:
> Martin McEvoy writes:
>
>   
>>> o be precise, the most commonly used value was rev="made", which is
>>> equivalent to rel="author" and thus was not a convincing use case. 
>>>       
>> !! rel-author doesn't mean the same as rev-made eg:
>>     
>
> In which cases doesn't it?  If A is the author of B then B was made by
> A, surely?
>   
Its not explicit enough, there are times when there is a need to express 
explicit relationships to things, a uniqueness that only you can relate 
to, rev= is an explicit one way relationship from A to B

another example is (and I'm sure you have seen this kind of markup all 
the time)

 From the "real world" found here: 
http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/

<p>I read an interesting post recently, <a 
href="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html" 
title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in 
Microformats?’</a>....</p>

An explicit one way relationship I might like to add to the hyperlink 
above may be rev="reply"

<a rev="reply" 
href="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html" 
title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in 
Microformats?’</a>


the author would then be saying ...

<http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/> is a reply to 
<http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html> 


....
>   
>> "I have just finished this new  <a rel="author"  
>> href="http://coolsite.co.uk/"> Cool website</a> check it out""
>>
>> that would mean <http://coolsite.co.uk/> is the author of the referring  
>> page which is nonsense.
>>     
>
> Indeed, but nobody is suggesting that would be appropriate.
>
>   
>> rev="author" is clearly better semantics in the  above case?
>>     
>
> Yes, if using rev.  Without rev it could be written as rel=made, because
> made is the opposite of author.
>   

?... in the above example that would say <http://coolsite.co.uk/> made 
the referring page? ....
>   
>>> The second most common value was rev="stylesheet", which is
>>> meaningless and obviously meant to be rel="stylesheet".
>>>       

That's just a matter of educating people not saying lets take rev away 
because you don't know how to use it?
>> And that was the basis of the whatwg decision to drop rev? (I am not
>> criticizing just trying to understand it)
>>     
>
> Data of what people have actually done, with the existence of current
> browsers and standards, informs many decisions.
>   
agreed..
>   
>> surely all it needed was to define some rev values (the same as rel)
>> and people will start using rev correctly?
>>     
>
> What semantics do you think authors who wrote rev=stylesheet were
> meaning to convey?  Presumably not that the webpage containing it is the
> style-sheet for the CSS file that it linked to -- so it's definitely a
> mistake by the author.
>   
It was of course but how many authors make that mistake now?
> If what the author meant to write was rel=stylesheet then HTML 5 is
> surely an improvement, by dropping the confusing rev=stylesheet?
>
> Or do you think something else is commonly meant by rev=stylesheet?
>   
No what makes you think that?
>   
>>> We therefore determined that authors would benefit more from the
>>> validator complaining about this attribute instead of supporting it.
>>>
>>> Anything that could be done with rev="" can be done with rel="" with
>>> an opposite keyword, so this omission should be easy to handle.
>>>       
as I have demonstrated above rev= a uniqueness, something that ONLY <A> 
can say about <B>.
>> There are some cases where that is just not possible.
>>     
>
> Which?
>   

see above.
> Smylers
>   

Thanks

-- 
Martin McEvoy

http://weborganics.co.uk/