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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:17 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> At the moment, my intent is to remove 'rev' from the BNF and state how new parameters can be added (either by updating the document, for parameters common to many relation types, or on a per-type / per-application basis). 
> 
> I think we are going around in circles.  The normal way to document a
> deprecated protocol feature is to include it in the ABNF and state
> that it is deprecated in the prose.  Just like obs-text in HTTP.
> Otherwise, we'll just keep getting asked "what happened to rev?"  

Indeed.

> ...
> A reverse link would show up as a potential transition from B if
> you are currently at B.  That terminology is from hypertext research
> where link servers would maintain a database of all links.  That is
> why the HTML4 definition is confusing to folks who have worked with
> traditional hypertext systems, since the Web does not maintain reverse
> links (other than via external services like a CMS or Google).
> 
> Anyways, it doesn't matter whether people are confused or not.
> What matters is that the HTML2 definition of rev defines how the
> technology actually works, whereas the HTML4 definition adds a
> bunch of hand-waving and then misuses hypertext terminology in
> order to explain what it "means" -- the result is neither technically
> correct nor consistent with other hypertext systems, even if it
> can be read the same way if we twist our heads a certain direction,
> close one eye, and pretend we are in Kansas.
> ...

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?

BR, Julian