Re: [whatwg] WHATWG Status Updater
Michael Kozakewich wrote: I think some kids found http://www.whatwg.org/#updater. WHATWH Twitter posts about blue penii came soon after. Needless to say, it wasn't quite a great idea to attach that form to a public page. At the very least, add a password field, and circulate the password to the mailing list members (non-publicly). It's coming faster and faster, now, so I'd recommend doing it as soon as possible. (Who's in charge of updating the site, anyway? LOL +1 Latest status is "I LOVE THE C*CK!!!" Funniest thing I've seen in ages -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Microdata and Linked Data
Hello Ian Ian Hickson wrote: I'm definitely against any in-page indirection mechanism, because we have seen with XML Namespaces (and with RDFa) that prefixes are simply a huge source of problems. They are indeed, XML namespaces fixed one problem calling different things by the same name but they created another problem of calling the same thing by different names, Prefixes are not themselves bad, misunderstood or any kind of indirection mechanism, they are just short hand urls, they are actually quite intuitive if used correctly. RDFa Is currently trying to solve its problems with xmlns, is just a minor design flaw, xmlns is used for structure not content and they realize that issue. Best wishes -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
[whatwg] Microdata Revisited
Hello All I have been working on a new proposal for HTML 5 Microdata, I thought you might all like to take a look at what I have come up with so far. please visit http://weborganics.co.uk/test/microdata.html Any feed back would be nice ;) Best wishes -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
[whatwg] support?
Hello, Quick question, Is there a list of browsers that support the and tags ? Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Hello Martin McEvoy wrote: @rev = This relates to That, or a rev="help" link indicates that the current document is "help" for the resource indicated by the href. @rel = That relates to This, or a rel="help" link indicates that the resource indicated by the href is "help" for the current document. Anyway I give up, this discussion is getting a little too testy, If you, And many others don't understand the point I am trying to make, what progress is there to be made, Its all just wasted time (something I don't have right now), Im sure HTML5 will be great for Browser Vendors, for the Humble author well we'll see. Thanks everyone for your...er...kind words see ya ;-) I agree Almost ALL cases of rev="made" rel="author" can be used INSTEAD, I apologize over my denial of this fact, the truth is Most people do not use @rev=made the same way as I would :-[ I had a look at over 150 (not a lot but this was done my manually looking at the source of the pages) examples of rev="made" almost 90% were links like this, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"/> the rest were like this http://HOST.DOMAIN"/> or this: http://HOST.DOMAIN";>foo and this mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">foo In all the cases I looked at rel="author" can be used Instead, Moral: Should have done my homework FIRST :-) Its still a shame to lose @rev though It has been around for a while http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt and despite its misuse its still a very handy attribute (used in the right way) Best wishes. -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Ian Hickson wrote: [Lots of edits] I don't know what you mean by "reverse and inverse"; where do the specifications define it that way and what does it mean? @rev = This relates to That, or a rev="help" link indicates that the current document is "help" for the resource indicated by the href. @rel = That relates to This, or a rel="help" link indicates that the resource indicated by the href is "help" for the current document. Anyway I give up, this discussion is getting a little too testy, If you, And many others don't understand the point I am trying to make, what progress is there to be made, Its all just wasted time (something I don't have right now), Im sure HTML5 will be great for Browser Vendors, for the Humble author well we'll see. Thanks everyone for your...er...kind words see ya ;-) -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
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 ;-) -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote: 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 As others have noted, the data does in fact show that rev="" is rarely used for anything other than rev=made, and is, with the exception of rev=made, usually used incorrectly when used at all. The idea of removing it is to make validators more able to report these mistakes, thus helping authors write better HTML. OK then... 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* Removing "rev" doesn't affect previous pages, as they continue to be valid HTML4 if they were valid HTML4 before, and UAs can continue to support those semantics for as long as they want to support those pages. I cant see anyone abandoning HTML4 soon at least not in my lifetimebut you never know Furthermore, since the definition of "rel" in HTML5 allows relationships in 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? On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote: There are 1517 instances of @rev of those: "made" occurs 83% of the time (1259 instances) "stylesheet" occurs 8.2% of the time (124 instances) The rest occur 8.9% of the time (135 instances) These numbers support removing rev="" based on the design principles we are using for HTML5. 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 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.. the fact that a high amount of authors are using rev-made is Inspiring to say the least, because every made link type is a claim of ownership, not authorship two totally different semantics. I believe it is unrealistic to expect authors to split semantics that finely. They do... 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 http://somegroovysite.com/";>Groovy Site Above Statement (In HTML4) says <http://somegroovysite.com/> Authored < http://groovydeveloper.com/> Which Is rubbish its the other way round The Same statement in HTML5 will say (because @rel is a reverse and inverse link type) <http://somegroovysite.com/> Authored < http://groovydeveloper.com/> and < http://groovydeveloper.com/> Authored <http://somegroovysite.com/> @rel seems to be redundant because describing the link with rel="author" doesn't actually tell you who the author of a is page you have to guess, the statement is at most only half correct and again not expressing any real semantics [edits] 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? [1] http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/pages.html On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote: That does not solve the "problem" of rev="made" because its not the same as rel="author" "author" can relate to multiple instances on a page saying "WE made this", an Author may have no control over who claims authorship of a page. "made" is usually a single point perspective, Its a way of authors claiming their own links in a statement saying "I made This". I don't understand your distinction. rev=made and rel=author are interchangeable, No I guess you don't :-) While I appreciate your feedback, I'm afraid that in this instance the weight of the argument is more strongly in favour of dropping the attribute, thus it has been dropped. Unfairly From what I can tell Thanks for your help anyway -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Philip Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > Philip Taylor wrote: >> >> rev=stylesheet makes up 57% of those uses of rev, >> > > How do you get that figure? > > even if you just compare rev="made"(1157 instances) and rev="stylesheet"(107 > instances) you get 9.25% of the examples use rev incorrectly That figure was from the case of > "... (excluding rev=made, which is > uninteresting since it's redundant with rel=author) ...". since that appears to be what Hixie meant (but forgot to say) when claiming that most uses of rev were typos of rel. (Case-insensitively, I counted 1259 rev="made", 122 rev="stylesheet", and 1474 rev="..." in total, which means 215 in total excluding rev="made", and 122/215=57%.) -- Philip Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In addition, a large proportion (looks like a majority, but I haven't explicitly calculated) of the remaining @rev showing up is rev="home", rev="back", rev="toc" etc. which is clearly incorrect. Those people are assuming the @rev is meant to be a "go back" link, rather than just expressing a reverse-semantic version of @rel. (I highly doubt that these are links *from* home pages to inner pages, which would be necessary for the semantics to work correctly.) There are also a couple (3, it seems) of rev="shortcut icon", which is a similar typo to the rev="stylesheet" one, and several rev="owns" and similar which suffers from the same redundancy as rev="made" (just replace it with rel="owner"). So, by this survey, it looks like there's less than 50 correct and not-obviously-redundant uses of rev out of 127k, which puts it under 0.04%. ~TJ Here is my take on the subject. There are 1517 instances of @rev of those: "made" occurs 83% of the time (1259 instances) "stylesheet" occurs 8.2% of the time (124 instances) The rest occur 8.9% of the time (135 instances) the misuse of "stylesheet" is trivial and only a matter of informing authors of their error, the fact that a high amount of authors are using rev-made is Inspiring to say the least, because every made link type is a claim of ownership, not authorship two totally different semantics. I will study the results of @rel soon but from first glance It seems there is (statistically) more abuse and misunderstanding about @rel than there will ever be than @rev Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Philip Taylor wrote: rev=stylesheet makes up 57% of those uses of rev, How do you get that figure? even if you just compare rev="made"(1157 instances) and rev="stylesheet"(107 instances) you get 9.25% of the examples use rev incorrectly I will compare the rest of the results (if you like) but I cant imagine the figure will get any where near 57%? Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Ian Hickson wrote: 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). That does not solve the "problem" of rev="made" because its not the same as rel="author" "author" can relate to multiple instances on a page saying "WE made this", an Author may have no control over who claims authorship of a page. "made" is usually a single point perspective, Its a way of authors claiming their own links in a statement saying "I made This". rev="made" is subtle but ever so important link relationship for an author, HTML5 really shouldn't abandon rev because of it. Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Hello Philip Philip Taylor wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/linkrels.html [...] If you have a more up to date study on link relationships, please can I have a link? 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" Great stuff Thanks! -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Smylers wrote: Martin McEvoy writes: Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote: (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? There's a difference between adding an attribute and adding to the set of values defined for an attribute; given rel's existence, the cost of adding start, up, etc is quite possibly less than of adding rev. OK that makes sense, what cost is there of using rev and defining a few rev link types? There's also the misuse to consider. If, say, rel=up is barely used but when it is used it's generally used correctly then it's benign, and not causing any harm. Significant rev misuse has been identified; its existence is confusing people into writing something they don't mean. 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 all the time, the same goes for based on the statement above HTML5 should drop those too? Smylers Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Hello Ian, Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote: The second most common value was rev="stylesheet", which is meaningless and obviously meant to be rel="stylesheet". And that was the basis of the whatwg decision to drop rev? Yes. Was this the study you based your decisions on? http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/linkrels.html (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? If you have a more up to date study on link relationships, please can I have a link? Best Wishes -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Robert O'Rourke wrote: Martin McEvoy wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: Martin McEvoy wrote: From the "real world" found here: http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/ 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?’ In any case, if there was a real use case for such a relationship, then it rel="reply-to" would seem to be more appropriate. It's meaning would then be roughly analogous to that of the In-Reply-To email header field. That was a good example of how Murky @rel is compared to @rev 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?’ would be <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html> is in reply to the referencing document surely? Thanks Hi Martin, hope you're well :) Hello Rob, nice to hear from you, yes I am well :-) I don't chirp up that often on this list but I have to agree that @rev isn't much of a loss. Perhaps for the above example rel="source" or rel="muse" would be semantically valid as a reply could be said to be inspired by the thing it's replying to... maybe that's a bad example. No Not that bad rel=muse is near the mark, but the author of the page I am referencing may not give me inspiration, I just want to reply to someone, it may be rhetorical, or insulting? XFN rel values like "muse" are about how you think they would relate to you, not about how you would relate to them eg: http://sanchothefat.com/"; rel="muse">Robert O'Rourke I would be saying that <http://sanchothefat.com/> would describe itself a muse of the referencing document? by abandoning @rev you are denying the author the ability to express inverse relationships, the ability to say that I have some explicit relationship to a thing To follow mailing list standards there are replies to the Original Poster or OP so maybe you could use rel="op". Replies via blog posts are pretty much the same as an email reply, just in a different context. Maybe it's not ideal but @rev can be really confusing sometimes as demonstrated by the evidence. @rev => how "this" relates to "that" @rel => how "that" relates to "this" Rob Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Lachlan Hunt wrote: Martin McEvoy wrote: From the "real world" found here: http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/ I read an interesting post recently, 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?’ An explicit one way relationship I might like to add to the hyperlink above may be 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?’ It seems the "real world" example you point to doesn't actually use such a relationship, so I don't see how it qualifies as being real world example in this case. In any case, if there was a real use case for such a relationship, then it rel="reply-to" would seem to be more appropriate. It's meaning would then be roughly analogous to that of the In-Reply-To email header field. That was a good example of how Murky @rel is compared to @rev 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?’ would be <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html> is in reply to the referencing document surely? (Although, I'm not convinced that there is a use case that really needs solving here, and speculating about the use of hypothetical relationships doesn't really provide any compelling evidence in support of the rev attribute.) Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
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/ I read an interesting post recently, 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?’ An explicit one way relationship I might like to add to the hyperlink above may be 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?’ 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 href="http://coolsite.co.uk/";> Cool website 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 can say about . There are some cases where that is just not possible. Which? see above. Smylers Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?
Hello Ian Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote: Just one small question Why Has HTML5 dropped the rev=""[1] attribute? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#absent-attributes 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="". To 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: "I have just finished this new href="http://coolsite.co.uk/";>Cool website check it out"" that would mean <http://coolsite.co.uk/> is the author of the referring page which is nonsense. rev="author" is clearly better semantics in the above case? The second most common value was rev="stylesheet", which is meaningless and obviously meant to be rel="stylesheet". And that was the basis of the whatwg decision to drop rev? (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? 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. There are some cases where that is just not possible. Cheers, Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
[whatwg] Absent rev?
Hello all Just one small question Why Has HTML5 dropped the rev=""[1] attribute? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#absent-attributes Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] ---
timeless wrote: On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:42 AM, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tim Berners-Lee apparently when he introduced a bunch of technologies such as HTTP, HTML FTP, IP TCIP and others and called it the World Wide Web, closely followed by the Mosaic Web Browser[1] a direct descendant of Firefox ;-) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(web_browser)] Netscape got the engineering team which made mosaic, hence Mozilla (mosaic killer). But the engine actually is more directly related to Internet Explorer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer#History IE and FF are both related to Mosaic ;-) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc.#The_Browser_Wars -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] ---
Sam Kuper wrote: 2008/11/5 Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [...] closely followed by the Mosaic Web Browser[1] a direct descendant of Firefox Ancestor, surely? LOL yes -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Re: [whatwg] ---
Pentasis wrote: Who ever said that the standards are here for browsers? Tim Berners-Lee apparently when he introduced a bunch of technologies such as HTTP, HTML FTP, IP TCIP and others and called it the World Wide Web, closely followed by the Mosaic Web Browser[1] a direct descendant of Firefox ;-) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(web_browser)] -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
