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/
