Hello...
Smylers wrote:
Martin McEvoy writes:
o be precise, the most commonly used value was rev="made", which is
equivalent to rel="author" and thus was not a convincing use case.
!! rel-author doesn't mean the same as rev-made eg:
In which cases doesn't it? If A is the author of B then B was made by
A, surely?
Its not explicit enough, there are times when there is a need to express
explicit relationships to things, a uniqueness that only you can relate
to, rev= is an explicit one way relationship from A to B
another example is (and I'm sure you have seen this kind of markup all
the time)
From the "real world" found here:
http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/
<p>I read an interesting post recently, <a
href="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html";
title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in
Microformats?’</a>....</p>
An explicit one way relationship I might like to add to the hyperlink
above may be rev="reply"
<a rev="reply"
href="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html";
title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in
Microformats?’</a>
the author would then be saying ...
<http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/> is a reply to
<http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html>
....
"I have just finished this new <a rel="author"
href="http://coolsite.co.uk/";> Cool website</a> check it out""
that would mean <http://coolsite.co.uk/> is the author of the referring
page which is nonsense.
Indeed, but nobody is suggesting that would be appropriate.
rev="author" is clearly better semantics in the above case?
Yes, if using rev. Without rev it could be written as rel=made, because
made is the opposite of author.
?... in the above example that would say <http://coolsite.co.uk/> made
the referring page? ....
The second most common value was rev="stylesheet", which is
meaningless and obviously meant to be rel="stylesheet".
That's just a matter of educating people not saying lets take rev away
because you don't know how to use it?
And that was the basis of the whatwg decision to drop rev? (I am not
criticizing just trying to understand it)
Data of what people have actually done, with the existence of current
browsers and standards, informs many decisions.
agreed..
surely all it needed was to define some rev values (the same as rel)
and people will start using rev correctly?
What semantics do you think authors who wrote rev=stylesheet were
meaning to convey? Presumably not that the webpage containing it is the
style-sheet for the CSS file that it linked to -- so it's definitely a
mistake by the author.
It was of course but how many authors make that mistake now?
If what the author meant to write was rel=stylesheet then HTML 5 is
surely an improvement, by dropping the confusing rev=stylesheet?
Or do you think something else is commonly meant by rev=stylesheet?
No what makes you think that?
We therefore determined that authors would benefit more from the
validator complaining about this attribute instead of supporting it.
Anything that could be done with rev="" can be done with rel="" with
an opposite keyword, so this omission should be easy to handle.
as I have demonstrated above rev= a uniqueness, something that ONLY <A>
can say about <B>.
There are some cases where that is just not possible.
Which?
see above.
Smylers
Thanks
--
Martin McEvoy
http://weborganics.co.uk/
