[whatwg] Absent rev?

[Martin McEvoy]

Robert O'Rourke wrote:
> 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 :)

Hello Rob, nice to hear from you, yes I am 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.

No Not that bad rel=muse is near the mark, but the author of the page I 
am referencing may not give me inspiration, I just want to reply to 
someone, it may be rhetorical, or insulting?

XFN rel values like "muse" are about how you think they would relate to 
you, not about how you would relate to them eg:

<a href="http://sanchothefat.com/" rel="muse">Robert O'Rourke</a>

I would be saying that <http://sanchothefat.com/> would describe itself 
a muse of the referencing document?

by abandoning @rev you are denying the author the ability to express 
inverse relationships, the ability to say that I have some explicit 
relationship to a thing
>
> 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.

@rev => how "this" relates to "that"

@rel => how "that" relates to "this"

 
>
> Rob

Thanks

-- 
Martin McEvoy

http://weborganics.co.uk/