On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Philip Taylor wrote: >> http://philip.html5.org/data/link-rel-rev.txt has some more recent >> data, from a different set of pages (and so with different biases, >> e.g. there's lots of Wikipedia and IMDB pages using >> rel="apple-touch-icon"), with less processing (no case-insensitivity >> or token-splitting). > > Thank you Philip that is the most useful set of data I have seen for a long > time > > 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 > > Out of the 127249 pages studied, only 0.09% actually use rev="stylesheet"
The premise from near the beginning of this thread was: > We did some studies and found that the attribute was almost never used, > and most of the time, when it was used, it was a typo where someone meant > to write rel="" but wrote rev="". I think that ought to say "... (excluding rev=made, which is uninteresting since it's redundant with rel=author) ...". In that case, rev is used on 0.2% of pages, which justifies the claim "almost never used". And rev=stylesheet makes up 57% of those uses of rev, which justifies the claim "most of the time ... it was a typo" (under a loose definition of "typo" that includes people copying-and-pasting without understanding the distinction between rel and rev, which is the impression I get from looking at some of these pages). And looking at some other values, e.g. <link rev="start" href="/" title="Home Page" /> which seems like it ought to be rel instead, there are typos in more cases than just rev=stylesheet. So the premise seems valid. -- Philip Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
