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: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#link-type-author 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 > Site</a> > > 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[1] 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! > rev=made > > 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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
