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/
