[whatwg] Absent rev?
Martin McEvoy
martin at weborganics.co.uk
Wed Nov 19 12:08:10 PST 2008
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>
>> It basically says that the whole premise that HTML5 should drop *rev*
>> (a) because authors use it wrong, (b) Many authors use rev-stylesheet
>> wrong, is a MYTH and an inaccurate assessment of the *rev* attribute
>>
>
> As others have noted, the data does in fact show that rev="" is rarely
> used for anything other than rev=made, and is, with the exception of
> rev=made, usually used incorrectly when used at all.
>
> The idea of removing it is to make validators more able to report these
> mistakes, thus helping authors write better HTML.
>
OK then...
> Despite your claims to the contrary, given the way that the "rel"
> attribute and the related keywords are defined, rel=author does in fact
> convey the semantics that rev=made did.
>
No It doesn't Reverse and Inverse properties are key factors of any
Semantics without both @rev and @rel there is hardly any semantics at
all just a one way stream of information, which most of the time you
have to guess what the Authors intentions were.
rel=author on the whole only relates to published documents, rel=made
relates to Documents, Music, Photos, Videos, Sunday Lunch! Literaly
anything that can be *made*
> Removing "rev" doesn't affect previous pages, as they continue to be valid
> HTML4 if they were valid HTML4 before, and UAs can continue to support
> those semantics for as long as they want to support those pages.
>
I cant see anyone abandoning HTML4 soon at least not in my
lifetime....but you never know....
> Furthermore, since the definition of "rel" in HTML5 allows relationships
> in either direction to be defined, there is no need anymore for a separate
> rev="" attribute.
>
So essentially @rel in html5 is breaking the semantics of @rel just
because it cant deal with @rev?
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>
>> There are 1517 instances of @rev
>>
>> of those:
>>
>> "made" occurs 83% of the time (1259 instances)
>> "stylesheet" occurs 8.2% of the time (124 instances)
>> The rest occur 8.9% of the time (135 instances)
>>
>
> These numbers support removing rev="" based on the design principles we
> are using for HTML5.
>
>> the misuse of "stylesheet" is trivial and only a matter of informing
>> authors of their error
>>
>
> Well, who's going to be doing the informing?
The publishers of HTML5
> Nobody did it in the past ten
> years, why would they do it now?
>
>
Nobody over the last 10 years informed Authors very about Validation and
Accessibility, but they are at last getting to grips with it..
>> the fact that a high amount of authors are using rev-made is Inspiring
>> to say the least, because every made link type is a claim of ownership,
>> not authorship two totally different semantics.
>>
>
> I believe it is unrealistic to expect authors to split semantics that
> finely.
They do...
> Authors who today use rev="made" could equally well use
> rel="author" without loss of generality IMHO.
>
OK then example:
I am the author of numerous websites and I decide (like many people do)
to place some links on my homepage a portfolio If you like.
My Homepage is at : http://groovydeveloper.com/
Here is my link <a rel="author" href="http://somegroovysite.com/">Groovy
Site</a>
Above Statement (In HTML4) says
<http://somegroovysite.com/> Authored < http://groovydeveloper.com/>
Which Is rubbish its the other way round
The Same statement in HTML5 will say (because @rel is a reverse and
inverse link type)
<http://somegroovysite.com/> Authored < http://groovydeveloper.com/>
and
< http://groovydeveloper.com/> Authored <http://somegroovysite.com/>
@rel seems to be redundant because describing the link with rel="author"
doesn't actually tell you who the author of a is page you have to guess,
the statement is at most only half correct and again not expressing any
real semantics....
[edits]
> If there are redundant features that are only used 0.2% of the time, we
> should probably remove them, yes. Are there any?
>
A lot considering that the average website only uses 19 elements[1] How
many are there in HTML5?
[1] http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/pages.html
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>
>> That does not solve the "problem" of rev="made" because its not the same
>> as rel="author"
>>
>> "author" can relate to multiple instances on a page saying "WE made
>> this", an Author may have no control over who claims authorship of a
>> page.
>>
>> "made" is usually a single point perspective, Its a way of authors
>> claiming their own links in a statement saying "I made This".
>>
>
> I don't understand your distinction. rev=made and rel=author are
> interchangeable,
No I guess you don't :-)
>
> While I appreciate your feedback, I'm afraid that in this instance the
> weight of the argument is more strongly in favour of dropping the
> attribute, thus it has been dropped.
>
Unfairly From what I can tell
Thanks for your help anyway
--
Martin McEvoy
http://weborganics.co.uk/
More information about the whatwg
mailing list