26530 2014-08-06 07:19:37 +0000 reverse hyperlink attribute rev missing in HTML5 2014-08-28 15:07:16 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG CR HTML5 spec unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED MOVED P2 normal --- 1 cherriedquat robin mike public-html-admin public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 109982 0 cherriedquat 2014-08-06 07:19:37 +0000 Previous versions of (X)HTML had a rev attribute for the a and link elements (and XHTML 2 for nearly all elements) which allowed to specify the reverse relationship of hyperlinks. This is very useful to create Index and Glossary entries in document collections. For example, using something like <h2 id="compiler_gcc">Support for <a rev="Index">GCC<a></h2> in a document foo.xhtml could automatically (i.e. using XSLT) create an Index entry <a href="foo.xhtml#compiler_gcc">GCC</a> in an Index document for that document collection. The rev attribute seems to be completely forgotten, as it also is not listed in 11 Obsolete features http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#obsolete I think the rev attribute is a great feature, totally underestimated feature, please do not drop it from (X)HTML. 109986 1 mike 2014-08-06 08:33:11 +0000 (In reply to Christian Hujer from comment #0) > For example, using something like > > <h2 id="compiler_gcc">Support for <a rev="Index">GCC<a></h2> > > in a document foo.xhtml could automatically (i.e. using XSLT) create an > Index entry <a href="foo.xhtml#compiler_gcc">GCC</a> in an Index document > for that document collection. You could instead just mark up that example as, e.g., <a rel="IndexTerm">GCC</a> > The rev attribute seems to be completely forgotten, It's not forgotten. It was intentionally dropped in HTML5. It's documented as a dropped attribute here: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#obsolete-attributes It's actually the first attribute listed there. > as it also is not listed > in 11 Obsolete features http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#obsolete That's a bug in the HTML5 spec. I've raised bug 26531 for it. 110713 2 robin 2014-08-28 15:07:16 +0000 Since this was intentionally dropped but is indeed not properly listed, and since Mike opened bug 26531 for that, we can close here.