Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 08 February 2010 06:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A331E3A6809 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:13:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.347, BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V8g9fD0qFSEc for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D683A68E9 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:13:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.26.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 609DD22E1EB; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 01:14:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B6C0E00.8080405@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:11 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <86A801C9-1195-4ABE-9F49-A452993A78A0@mnot.net>
References: <20100119053002.5CD613A683B@core3.amsl.com> <E4FF7733-D744-4AC3-AB99-66A12868E4CE@mnot.net> <4B56E27D.800@gmx.de> <4B58574B.4050204@gmx.de> <FE77FC83-4137-421B-9511-02B13642AE1A@mnot.net> <4B596B30.1030400@gmx.de> <3FB0E494-EE9C-46F8-A924-2768C730763A@mnot.net> <1C573F35-D767-4219-BF65-2E28A0C0205D@gbiv.com> <4B6C0E00.8080405@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:13:30 -0000

On 05/02/2010, at 11:24 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> HTML5 doesn't have rev anymore anyway (well, unless the WG changes this again)
> 
> So why don't we just say that "rev" means what HTML2 used to say, and be done with it?

Because (IMO) implementation experience has shown that rev= is horribly confusing* to developers, and will cause more problems than it solves; it's much better to just register a different relation (even if that does offend those who like tidiness). 

I'd be OK with putting it in the BNF, giving the HTML2 explanation, and deprecating it in prose, though. 


* For those who dispute this, have a look at blog and other discussions of rev=canonical; it tripped up a lot of people.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/