[whatwg] Absent rev?

[Tab Atkins Jr.]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Philip Taylor
<excors+whatwg at gmail.com<excors%2Bwhatwg at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Martin McEvoy <martin at weborganics.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > Philip Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >> rev=stylesheet makes up 57% of those uses of rev,
> >>
> >
> > How do you get that figure?
> >
> > even if you just compare rev="made"(1157 instances) and
> rev="stylesheet"(107
> > instances) you get 9.25% of the examples use rev incorrectly
>
> That figure was from the case of
>
> > "... (excluding rev=made, which is
> > uninteresting since it's redundant with rel=author) ...".
>
> since that appears to be what Hixie meant (but forgot to say) when
> claiming that most uses of rev were typos of rel.
>
> (Case-insensitively, I counted 1259 rev="made", 122 rev="stylesheet",
> and 1474 rev="..." in total, which means 215 in total excluding
> rev="made", and 122/215=57%.)
>
> --
> Philip Taylor
> excors at gmail.com
>

In addition, a large proportion (looks like a majority, but I haven't
explicitly calculated) of the remaining @rev showing up is rev="home",
rev="back", rev="toc" etc. which is clearly incorrect.  Those people are
assuming the @rev is meant to be a "go back" link, rather than just
expressing a reverse-semantic version of @rel.  (I highly doubt that these
are links *from* home pages to inner pages, which would be necessary for the
semantics to work correctly.)

There are also a couple (3, it seems) of rev="shortcut icon", which is a
similar typo to the rev="stylesheet" one, and several rev="owns" and similar
which suffers from the same redundancy as rev="made" (just replace it with
rel="owner").

So, by this survey, it looks like there's less than 50 correct and
not-obviously-redundant uses of rev out of 127k, which puts it under 0.04%.

~TJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081119/92e171dc/attachment-0001.htm>