On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote: > > Was this the study you based your decisions on? > > http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/linkrels.html
That study was based on the first set of data I obtained, but I have since made many more detailed studies. > > > (I am not criticizing just trying to understand it) surely all it > > > needed was to define some rev values (the same as rel) and people > > > will start using rev correctly? > > > > That's backwards -- looking for a problem to fit the solution, not > > looking for a solution to fit the problem > > No not really because If you look at the anyalasis(link above) made in > 2005 rev=made (9th) is used more than, rel start, search, help, top, up, > author and a whole lot of other link relationships that have made their > way into HTML5, It doesn't make any sense? The problem solved by rev=made (or rel=author, which is the same) is the problem of how to indicate the author of the page. We have solved that problem in HTML5 (with rel=author). The idea of defining rev values because nobody uses rev is what I was referring to when I said that it was backwards. > If you have a more up to date study on link relationships, please can I > have a link? I have not published anything recently, but the results have not changed significantly since that 2005 study was published. On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote: > > OK that makes sense, what cost is there of using rev and defining a few > rev link types? Author confusion, implementation cost, testing cost, cost in writing tutorials, cost in writing validators, etc. > This is the bit that I find so very wrong the most popular rev value is > rev-made which is used correctly most of the time, Authors Misuse <br> > all the time, the same goes for <address> based on the statement above > HTML5 should drop those too? We are considering dropping <address>, though on balance it is used correctly quite a lot too, so it's not clear whether removing it would be better or worse overall. <br> we probably can't drop since it is used so widely and does have some pretty important valid uses. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'