[whatwg] Absent rev?

[Robert O'Rourke]

Martin McEvoy wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Martin McEvoy wrote:
>>>  From the "real world" found here: 
>>> http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/
>>>
>>> <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>
>>
>> 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" 
> 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>
>
> would be 
> <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html> 
> is in reply to the referencing document surely?
>
> Thanks
>

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.

Rob