rel -vs- rev

The following is part of the rel FAQ <http://micro
formats.org/wiki/rel-faq>

| However, given that the 'rev' attribute has been more
often misused by
| authors than properly used (Google Code: Web Authoring
Statistics: Link
| Relationships <http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/linkrels.html&g
t;)
| is it even a good idea to use rev at all? 
|
| The short answer is unfortunately "no". Use of
"rev" SHOULD be avoided.
|
| However, VoteLinks' use of rev has been grandfathered
since it was such
| an early use. No future microformats should be developed
that use 'rev',
| and any use of 'rev' (apart from the
"grand-fathered" case of VoteLinks)
| is deprecated in microformats.

This seems to me to have been an entirely arbitrary
decision. Apart from 
the cited Google study, was there any other justification
given for this?

Looking at the cited Google study it shows that, of the top
twenty 
relationships used on the web, only one of them uses
"rev" at all, and 
appears to do so correctly! The quoted rel="made"
at position #21 in the 
survey is *assumed* to be an incorrect usage, though one can
easily 
imagine plausible uses for such a construct. (e.g. a web
designer's 
portfolio, linking to various sites that he's made.) So this
study does 
not seem to show a significant degree of incorrect usage of
rev.

Besides which, there are millions of pages out there that
incorrectly use 
the alt="" attribute to produce tooltips, whether
or not the contents are 
suitable as alternative text. Just because there are so many
examples of 
abuse of the attribute, it doesn't make sense to avoid using
it for its 
correct purpose. In fact, quite the opposite -- when an
attribute is 
frequently misused, we ought to be using it correctly
whenever possible, 
and encouraging others to do so as well.

rev, though not used particularly frequently is a very
useful attribute. 
As an example, there is currently a debate on the
xfn-brainstorming wiki 
page about what value of rel to use to link to "someone
of whom you are a 
fan". Suggestions include:

	* rel="source"
	* rel="leader"
	* rel="influencer"
	* rel="idol"
	* rel="subscription"

Surely, a simple rev="fan" is far more elegant
solution?

I think that rev offers great utility to microformats, and
shouldn't be 
dismissed out of hand -- and certainly not based on the
current evidence 
on the wiki! Ask not what you can do for your rev, as what
your rev can do 
for you!

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 26 days,
23:23.]

                               Bottled Water
          http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/02/18/bottled-water/

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Toby A Inkster wrote:
> The following is part of the rel FAQ <http://microform
ats.org/wiki/rel-faq 
> >
>
> | However, given that the 'rev' attribute has been more
often  
> misused by
> | authors than properly used (Google Code: Web
Authoring Statistics:  
> Link
> | Relationships <http://code.
google.com/webstats/2005-12/ 
> linkrels.html>)
> | is it even a good idea to use rev at all?
> |
> | The short answer is unfortunately "no". Use
of "rev" SHOULD be  
> avoided.
> |
> | However, VoteLinks' use of rev has been grandfathered
since it was  
> such
> | an early use. No future microformats should be
developed that use  
> 'rev',
> | and any use of 'rev' (apart from the
"grand-fathered" case of  
> VoteLinks)
> | is deprecated in microformats.
>
> This seems to me to have been an entirely arbitrary
decision. Apart  
> from
> the cited Google study, was there any other
justification given for  
> this?

I don't think 'arbitrary' is a good characterization of the
decision.

Besides the Google study, there are no other formal studies
that I  
know of, but plenty of anecdotal experience that
demonstrates that rel- 
vs-rev is confusing for authors.

In addition to this evidence, the current draft of HTML5
does not  
include rev (by design), so in the interest of building
microformats  
on top of existing standards (HTML4) in a future-compatible
way  
(HTML5) we should avoid using rev.

Additionally, experience with VoteLinks indicated that
authors didn't  
understand or even know about rev.

> Looking at the cited Google study it shows that, of the
top twenty
> relationships used on the web, only one of them uses
"rev" at all, and
> appears to do so correctly! The quoted
rel="made" at position #21 in  
> the
> survey is *assumed* to be an incorrect usage, though
one can easily
> imagine plausible uses for such a construct. (e.g. a
web designer's
> portfolio, linking to various sites that he's made.) So
this study  
> does
> not seem to show a significant degree of incorrect
usage of rev.
>
> Besides which, there are millions of pages out there
that  
> incorrectly use
> the alt="" attribute to produce tooltips,
whether or not the  
> contents are
> suitable as alternative text. Just because there are so
many  
> examples of
> abuse of the attribute, it doesn't make sense to avoid
using it for  
> its
> correct purpose. In fact, quite the opposite -- when an
attribute is
> frequently misused, we ought to be using it correctly
whenever  
> possible,
> and encouraging others to do so as well.

Usage of alt is irrelevant here. alt isn't used for
structured data,  
rev
is.

> rev, though not used particularly frequently is a very
useful  
> attribute.
> As an example, there is currently a debate on the
xfn-brainstorming  
> wiki
> page about what value of rel to use to link to
"someone of whom you  
> are a
> fan". Suggestions include:
>
> 	* rel="source"
> 	* rel="leader"
> 	* rel="influencer"
> 	* rel="idol"
> 	* rel="subscription"
>
> Surely, a simple rev="fan" is far more
elegant solution?

Unfortunately the World Wide Web is a messy place, and
elegance isn't  
always an option.

> I think that rev offers great utility to microformats,
and shouldn't  
> be
> dismissed out of hand -- and certainly not based on the
current  
> evidence
> on the wiki! Ask not what you can do for your rev, as
what your rev  
> can do
> for you!

Your characterization of the decision as "out of
hand" doesn't account  
for the several years of discussion that went into it.

-ryan
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

In message <C4EBE787-52EC-4EE6-A1E1-8F4DD43F0375theryanking.com>, Ryan 
King <ryantheryanking.com> writes

>I don't think 'arbitrary' is a good characterization of
the decision.
[...]
>Your characterization of the decision as "out of
hand" doesn't account 
>for the several years of discussion that went into it.

But if that discussion isn't adequately documented, or the
decision 
isn't adequately explained, it's a reasonable, indeed
likely, conclusion 
for a relative newcomer to arrive at, surely?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Ryan King wrote:

> In addition to this evidence, the current draft of
HTML5 does not
> include rev (by design), so in the interest of building
microformats on
> top of existing standards (HTML4) in a
future-compatible way (HTML5) we
> should avoid using rev.

Nor does HTML 5 include <head profile>, yet the
current recommended way of 
linking to XMDP profiles is through that attribute; ditto
the "compact" 
attribute on any type of list, which is used by XOXO; and
I've already 
mentioned the collision between the HTML 5 and XFN
definitions of 
rel="contact".

> Your characterization of the decision as "out of
hand" doesn't account  
> for the several years of discussion that went into it.

If there are other justifications then fair enough, but
these are not 
documented on the wiki, nor easily findable by Googling
through the 
microformats-discuss archives.

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 27 days,
15:43.]

                               Bottled Water
          http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/02/18/bottled-water/

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss