[whatwg] Absent rev?
Ian Hickson
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Nov 19 03:25:04 PST 2008
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>
> Was this the study you based your decisions on?
>
> http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/linkrels.html
That study was based on the first set of data I obtained, but I have since
made many more detailed studies.
> > > (I am not criticizing just trying to understand it) surely all it
> > > needed was to define some rev values (the same as rel) and people
> > > will start using rev correctly?
> >
> > That's backwards -- looking for a problem to fit the solution, not
> > looking for a solution to fit the problem
>
> No not really because If you look at the anyalasis(link above) made in
> 2005 rev=made (9th) is used more than, rel start, search, help, top, up,
> author and a whole lot of other link relationships that have made their
> way into HTML5, It doesn't make any sense?
The problem solved by rev=made (or rel=author, which is the same) is the
problem of how to indicate the author of the page. We have solved that
problem in HTML5 (with rel=author).
The idea of defining rev values because nobody uses rev is what I was
referring to when I said that it was backwards.
> If you have a more up to date study on link relationships, please can I
> have a link?
I have not published anything recently, but the results have not changed
significantly since that 2005 study was published.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>
> OK that makes sense, what cost is there of using rev and defining a few
> rev link types?
Author confusion, implementation cost, testing cost, cost in writing
tutorials, cost in writing validators, etc.
> This is the bit that I find so very wrong the most popular rev value is
> rev-made which is used correctly most of the time, Authors Misuse <br>
> all the time, the same goes for <address> based on the statement above
> HTML5 should drop those too?
We are considering dropping <address>, though on balance it is used
correctly quite a lot too, so it's not clear whether removing it would be
better or worse overall. <br> we probably can't drop since it is used so
widely and does have some pretty important valid uses.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg
mailing list