On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:00:09 +0100, Dan Connolly <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 16:37 +0100, Steven Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:00:42 +0100, Dan Connolly <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Would the RDFa authoring community miss a/@rev if it went away?
> Does anyone have 1st-hand experience to share?
Of course we would! Removing @rev from HTML5 is one of the worst
examples
of cow-path design: apparently on the web, @rev is "hardly ever used"
and
so therefore should be removed, whether or not anyone has a use case for
it.
But in any case, authors do need it, they do use it, and @rev will
always
be in RDFa, so the question is moot in a way.
Could you give more details about who you mean when you say "we"?
We = RDFa authoring community.
I can see your personal opinion, and I share it, but I'm trying to find
out more detailed experience reports.
Well the advice "Use the rel attribute instead, with a term having the
opposite meaning."
is clearly written by someone with no experience of vocabularies. An
author will seldom have the choice about which vocabulary to use, and
vocabularies seldom have duplicated relationships.
It is true that @rev is less needed than @rel. It is not true that @rev is
not needed.
Best wishes,
Steven
