[whatwg] Absent rev?
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Nov 19 12:52:13 PST 2008
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote:
> > 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*
They are in fact _defined_ to be equivalent in HTML5:
I don't understand what benefit there would be to saying that HTML pages
about photos couldn't use rel=author. That seems weird.
> > 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?
Could you provide an example of how rel's semantics are broken?
> > > 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
That would be me, and I assure you that I am not going to be doing any
informing of the millions of authors who make this mistake.
> > 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..
On the contrary, both the validation and accessibility efforts have spent
massive amounts of resources on evangelisation.
> > I believe it is unrealistic to expect authors to split semantics that
> > finely.
> They do...
The data suggests that the majority of authors do not distinguish subtle
semantics like this. (I mean, more than 99% of people don't use rev="" at
all, for instance.)
> > 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
> Above Statement (In HTML4) says
> <http://somegroovysite.com/> Authored < http://groovydeveloper.com/>
> Which Is rubbish its the other way round
So say it the other way around, e.g.:
<p>I wrote <a href="http://somegroovysite.com/">Groovy Site</a>.</p>
You don't actually need a rel="" at all. What problem is the rel=""
solving for you?
If you really wanted to use rel="", you could define a new value, say
"sample-work", and use that:
<a rel="sample-work" href="http://somegroovysite.com/">Groovy Site</a>
> The Same statement in HTML5 will say (because @rel is a reverse and
> inverse link type)
I don't know what you mean by "reverse and inverse"; where do the
specifications define it that way and what does it mean?
> > 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 How
> many are there in HTML5?
Many more; are any redundant? We've removed <acronym> because of it being
redundant with <abbr>, I don't really know of any other redundant ones.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote:
> Martin McEvoy wrote:
> > rel=author on the whole only relates to published documents,
> > rel=made<---oops!
> > relates to Documents, Music, Photos, Videos, Sunday Lunch! Literaly
> > anything that can be *made*
> But you knew that ;-)
I believe this makes my point more strongly than anything else that has
been said in this thread. Even someone who is asking for rev="" to be kept
(and thus can be assumed to be informed on the matter) makes the very
mistake that our data shows is a common mistake. How can we expect your
average HTML author, who couldn't care less about HTML, to get this right
if even we get it wrong?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg