subject:"\[whatwg\] 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?

2008-11-19 Thread Smylers

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.

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.

Smylers

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

2008-11-19 Thread Ian Hickson

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.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

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 br 
all the time, the same goes for address  based on the statement above 
HTML5 should drop those too?



Smylers
  


Thanks

--
Martin McEvoy

http://weborganics.co.uk/

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

2008-11-19 Thread Philip Taylor

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).

-- 
Philip Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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?

2008-11-19 Thread Philip Taylor

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]

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?

2008-11-19 Thread Julian Reschke


 ...

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,
...


As far as I recall, a percentage of 0.2 usually is considered a big 
number, considering the total amount of pages.


Or are we going to remove *every* feature that's used in less than 0.2% 
of the pages?


BR, Julian

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

2008-11-19 Thread Philip Taylor

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Martin McEvoy [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]

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?

2008-11-19 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Martin McEvoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 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


Well, at the bottom of this email[1] is the previous list with all the @rel
removed.  This way everyone can easily see the numbers without having to
process the file themselves.

As previously noted, there are 1266 instances of rev=made (y'all missed a
few).  (Note also that one of them is rev=made, publisher,  which is
impossible together short of AI.)  There are 124 rev=stylesheet.  There
are 4 rev=shortcut icon, plus a few more obvious typos like
rev=copyright, rev=nofollow, and rev=text/css (1 of each, so 3 total).

The next group is somewhat subjectively wrong, so your own calculations may
lead to some slightly different numbers.  As well, it's possible I'm a few
off in a category, so my numbers may not match up *exactly*.

A few of these are mistakes where the author took the attribute as being
short for revision.  There are 3 of these.

There are several being used merely to hold arbitrary data for scripting.
There are 7 of these.

There are many which are for whatever reason holding arbitrary non-scripting
data, which can't be construed as anything but a confusion.  I count 36 of
these.

Another large category are those which are *probably* intended to be @rel,
but the author was confused about how @rel/@rev related and used it
incorrectly.  I count 29 of these.

We also have several which fall into the same category as rev=made, where
they are trivially redundant with an obvious @rel.  (I define trivial here
as can be turned into a @rel just by changing the conjugation of the
word.)  I count 26 of these.  To be specific, the values I'm talking about
here are owns, owner, author, designed, and powered.  It's also
possible that some of these actually fall into the previous category.

Finally we come to the ones that I can't otherwise categorize.  I'll just go
ahead and list them directly:
  3 a rev=vote-for ...
  2 a rev=testfield ...
  2 a rev=footnote ...
  1 link rev=Subdocument ...
  1 link rev=self ...
  1 link rev=replyto ...
  1 link rev=reply-to ...
  1 link rev=child ...
  1 a rev=vote-against ...
  1 a rev=vote-abstain ...
  1 a rev=review ...

Some of these may fall into a previous category, but it's possible that they
are being used correctly.  Many of these also have a fairly trivial @rel
that would express the same relationship as well.


So, let's discuss the numbers.  There about 1517 instances of @rev (my
numbers add up to 1513, but as I said, there may be some mistakes in my
numbers).  1292 of them are trivially reversible into an @rel.  160 of them
*are* @rel values, but the author either typoed or misunderstood the
@rel/@rev distinction.  46 of them are simply wrong, and don't have anything
to do with the actual uses of @rel/@rev.  15 are possibly correct uses of
@rev which aren't *trivially* reversible (that is, they actually require
some thinking about the relationship to name the opposite relation for use
in @rel).

That makes 85% of the uses trivially reversible, 14% of the uses mistakes,
and 1% of the uses valid and non-trivial to reverse into an @rel relation.
@rev-using links are only 1.2% of the total body of links which use @rel or
@rev.

[1]: http://www.xanthir.com/rev_using_links20081119.txt

~TJ

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

2008-11-19 Thread Ian Hickson

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.

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.

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.

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.


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? Nobody did it in the past ten 
years, why would they do it now?


 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. Authors who today use rev=made could equally well use 
rel=author without loss of generality IMHO.


 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

That's possible, but we can remove rev= without reducing the semantics 
that can be expressed; we can't remove both without losing a feature.


On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
 
 As far as I recall, a percentage of 0.2 usually is considered a big 
 number, considering the total amount of pages.

Most of hte 0.2% is rev=made, which is redundant with rel=author.


 Or are we going to remove *every* feature that's used in less than 0.2% 
 of the pages?

If there are redundant features that are only used 0.2% of the time, we 
should probably remove them, yes. Are there any?


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, they would both appear on the same page (the page that 
was written), pointing to the page of the author.


 rev=made is subtle but ever so important link relationship for an 
 author, HTML5 really shouldn't abandon rev because of it.

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.

If you still disagree, please provide new information explaining why, for 
example explaining the use case for rev= that rel= doesn't address.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

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 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

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?


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?

2008-11-19 Thread Smylers

Martin McEvoy writes:

Ian Hickson wrote:

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

Yes it does; it's specified that they are equivalent:

For historical reasons, user agents must also treat link, a, and area
elements that have a rev attribute with the value made as having
the author keyword specified as a link relationship.

--
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/structured-client-side-storage.html#link-type-author

Reverse and Inverse properties are key factors of any Semantics

OK.

without both @rev and @rel there is hardly any semantics at all just a
one way stream of information,

That simply isn't true, since it's always possible to define rel=foo and
rel=bar where bar conveys the same semantics as foo but in the opposite
direction; no rev needed.

which most of the time you have to guess what the Authors intentions
were.

Not at all, since part of the definition of the rel values says in which
direction they are to be interpreted. For example, rel=author

indicates that the referenced document provides further information
about the author of the section that the element defining the
hyperlink applies to.

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*

So the problem is that if I wanted to be able to create a link from my
Sunday lunch to its cook, annotating it as such, I wouldn't be able to
do so because rel=author isn't appropriate terminology to use in meals?

That's true, but given that my Sunday lunch isn't written in HTML
anyway, I don't see how it could be trying to use rel=author (or indeed
rev=made) in the first place! Ditto for all your other examples. By
definition the thing which is making the rel=author link has to be
written in HTML 5, and therefore has an author of some sort.

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?

No, the semantics of rel aren't changed from existing use; HTML 5 takes
care not to break existing widespread use.

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

Why should they bother to do that when then can more easily define the
problem no longer to exist?

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

Indeed.

The Same statement in HTML5 will say (because @rel is a reverse and
inverse link type)

I don't understand what you mean by the part in parentheses. Please
could you expand on it, or provide a reference.

http://somegroovysite.com/ Authored http://groovydeveloper.com/
and
http://groovydeveloper.com/ Authored http://somegroovysite.com/

Of course not. See my quote from the rel=author part of the spec above;
it clearly defines in which way that relationship applies.

Among the set of relationships that rel allows there are relationships
in each direction (both from and towards the current document), but a
given relationship is always unambiguously defined to be in a particular
direction.

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]

That simply doesn't follow. There are many ways in which hundreds of
different elements could be distributed throughout a population such
that each of them are used on more than 0.2% of pages yet the mean
elements per page is 19.

Smylers

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

2008-11-19 Thread Ian Hickson

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.:

   pI 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.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

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/

[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] Absent rev?


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. The second most common value was rev=stylesheet, 
which is meaningless and obviously meant to be rel=stylesheet. We 
therefore determined that authors would benefit more from the validator 
complaining about this attribute instead of supporting it.


(I don't dispute it's relative un-used-ness...)

Anything that could be done with rev= can be done with rel= with an 
opposite keyword, so this omission should be easy to handle.


This would seem to shift work from HTML5 to relationship vocabulary 
specs, whether RDFa-oriented or XFN-based: they'll have to name the 
relationship in both directions now.


eg.
john.html:
 pSee my a rel=father href=pa.htmldad's page/a for details/p
and

pa.html:
pSee my a rel=child href=john.htmlson's page/a for details/p

are ok in html5, but

pa.html: pReader,a rev=father href=john.htmli'm his father/a/p

So long as there's a plausible inverse defined,

...isn't. I'm not arguing here that this is right or wrong or good or 
bad or pretty or ugly, just that the parties defining little 
relationship vocabularies such as 'parent', 'child', 
'father','mother','brother','ex-line-manager', and so on will (now 'rev' 
is going away) need to think carefully about naming each inverse 
relationship as well. As you point out, rev= wasn't heavily used anyway; 
however technologies like microformats and RDFa are relatively new to 
the Web, and things can take a while to get adopted (eg. XHR/'ajax').


cheers,

Dan

a personal ps.:
for some reason, rev= always made my head hurt slightly to even think 
about,  I guess because there are two senses of a reversed link: the 
reversed meaning of a link versus the idea of an incoming link / 
backlink, and the difference is simultaneously both obvious and subtle

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  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. 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/

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

2008-11-18 Thread Smylers

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?

 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.

  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)

Data of what people have actually done, with the existence of current
browsers and standards, informs many decisions.

 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.

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?

  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.

Which?

Smylers

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?


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?


Then B contributed to the creation of A, yes. Perhaps not on their own.

But we need it in the other direction too: can we conclude from { A made 
B } that { B author A } ?


Not if B isn't textual. Authorship is about writing, but there are many 
other avenues for human creativity (some of which result in things with 
URLs, eg. software, images, sounds).


So there are two complications here, and these are very real world 
issues, chewing up countless hours in projects like Dublin Core.


First is a versus the. Nothing warrants reading the into 
rel=author. There might be other authors, listed or not listed in their 
own hyperlink. Or the page pointed to might be a collectively maintained 
page or group homepage etc. Or a mailto: for a mailing list.


Second is non-textual creations. The early Dublin Core specs had a 
dc:author property. This was changed back in 1996 or so to be 
dc:creator, since this better includes visual works, museum artifacts 
and so forth, ie. things that can be made, but which are not 
(postmodernism aside) conventionally considered texts. Authorship is a 
notion that doesn't make much sense in a non-textual context.


My point in previous mail about shifting work from HTML5 to elsewhere, 
is that this kind of distinction is subtle for many seemingly obvious 
pairs of relationship-type names, and that rev= is at least precise in 
its meaning.


cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/

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/

pI 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/

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

2008-11-18 Thread Lachlan Hunt


Martin McEvoy wrote:
 From the real world found here: 
http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/


pI 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


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. 
 (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.)


--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?


Smylers wrote:

Dan Brickley writes:


Smylers wrote:


Martin McEvoy writes:


!! 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?

Then B contributed to the creation of A, yes. Perhaps not on their own.

But we need it in the other direction too: can we conclude from { A made  
B } that { B author A } ?


Not if B isn't textual. Authorship is about writing, but there are
many other avenues for human creativity (some of which result in
things with URLs, eg. software, images, sounds).


Firstly, the term author can be used for at least some of those things;
definitely software.


Yes, 'software' was a bad example. But Dublin Core certainly did abandon 
the early term 'author' in favour of 'creator' after a workshop looking 
at requirements around images, museum artifacts and so on.



Secondly, if you think made is more generic than author, then surely
linking to such URLs with rel=made is an improvement on using
rev=author?


I don't associate 'being more generic' as a positive or a negative 
thing. Sometimes we want specificity, sometimes not. There is value in a 
'see also' relationship type; there is value in a 'schoolHomepage' 
relationship type too. Neither need be better.


If I wanted to find written works, then 'author' is a more relevant 
property than 'made'. If my concern is to find all the things created by 
some party, then 'made' may be more useful. My point was just that they 
have a different meaning (although much overlap).



First is a versus the. Nothing warrants reading the into
rel=author.


So presumably also nothing warrants reading the into rel=made?


Yup. If syntactic context (eg. via RDFa) associated the string 'made' 
with a specific definition rather than just the English word, then of 
course that definition could say anything it wanted - such as 'sole 
maker of ...' , 'primary maker of', etc.



The early Dublin Core specs had a dc:author property. This was
changed back in 1996 or so to be dc:creator,


I agree that creator would be a better term than author.  But I think
that's irrelevant to needing rev.


Without rev, content creators (in every language) will need to go 
through this dance, hunting through dictionaries and debating 
subtleties, to make sure that they've identified a suitable pair of 
words such that { X word1 Y } is true if and only if { Y word1 X }. 
Which is why I see this in terms of division of labour. Cleaning it out 
of HTML5 makes work elsewhere...


cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/



Smylers

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?


Dan Brickley wrote:

Without rev, content creators (in every language) will need to go 
through this dance, hunting through dictionaries and debating 
subtleties, to make sure that they've identified a suitable pair of 
words such that { X word1 Y } is true if and only if { Y word1 X }. 
Which is why I see this in terms of division of labour. Cleaning it out 
of HTML5 makes work elsewhere...


Sorry that should've been,

{ X word1 Y } is true if and only if { Y word2 X }.

Dan

ps. (since i'm mailing again, sorry) ... in an RDF/XML context, we had 
this issue in FOAF: we added 'depicts' alongside 'depiction' because the 
old RDF/XML syntax didn't deal well with inverses

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?


Lachlan Hunt wrote:

Martin McEvoy wrote:
 From the real world found here: 
http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/


pI 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


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

a rel=in-reply-to 
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


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?

2008-11-18 Thread Robert O'Rourke


Martin McEvoy wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

Martin McEvoy wrote:
 From the real world found here: 
http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/


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


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

a rel=in-reply-to 
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


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 :)

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.


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.


Rob

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?