[whatwg] Absent rev?
rob at sanchothefat.com
Tue Nov 18 08:22:29 PST 2008
Martin McEvoy wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Martin McEvoy wrote:
>>> From the "real world" found here:
>>> <a rev="reply"
>>> title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in
>> In any case, if there was a real use case for such a relationship,
>> then it rel="reply-to" would seem to be more appropriate. It's
>> meaning would then be roughly analogous to that of the In-Reply-To
>> email header field.
> That was a good example of how Murky @rel is compared to @rev
> <a rel="in-reply-to"
> title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in
> would be
> is in reply to the referencing document surely?
Hi Martin, hope you're well :)
I don't chirp up that often on this list but I have to agree that @rev
isn't much of a loss. Perhaps for the above example rel="source" or
rel="muse" would be semantically valid as a reply could be said to be
inspired by the thing it's replying to... maybe that's a bad example.
To follow mailing list standards there are replies to the Original
Poster or OP so maybe you could use rel="op". Replies via blog posts are
pretty much the same as an email reply, just in a different context.
Maybe it's not ideal but @rev can be really confusing sometimes as
demonstrated by the evidence.
More information about the whatwg