- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:55:12 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Forgot to forward this... > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Tantek Celik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> >> Date: 12 September 2008 6:53:53 PM >> To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> >> Subject: Re: Status of Link header >> Reply-To: tantek@cs.stanford.edu >> >> FWIW I'd suggest *not* including the rev attribute due to rampant >> author misunderstanding/misuse. We've decided to deprecate it >> microformats and not use it for anything new: >> >> http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-faq#Should_rev_even_be_used I agree that "rev" is problematic. However, it *is* in HTML4 and RFC2068, so I think it would be better to keep it in. If people need "rev" (when there's no inverse relation defined), they will use it anyway, right? > ... BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 11:55:54 UTC