On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Philip Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
> 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] > 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
