4 ms·

Well, it is controversial whether rev="canonical" is the right thing to be used. Furthermore the rev attribute has been removed from HTML5. See http://annevank

by akirk 17y ago

Well, it is controversial whether rev="canonical" is the right thing to be used. Furthermore the rev attribute has been removed from HTML5. See http://annevankesteren.nl/2009/04/rev-canonical http://annevankesteren.nl/2009/04/rev-canonical for some details.

sjs382 17y ago
A rebuttal: http://erikvold.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/4/21/rev_canonical_good http://erikvold.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/4/21/rev_canonical_g... I've disagreed with the rev attribute being removed from html5 since I read about it. The draft isn't final though, so time will tell... But back to html4... Google, Yahoo and MS all support (or have announced support for) rev="canonical". The only "standards" that matter are the ones that are used. :)
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > the only "standards" that matter are the ones that are used Right, like upper case html tags and the iframe tag... It's a difficult time for the web, and real standards are hard to come by. The 'standards that matter are the ones that are used' attitude is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place (Microsoft up front with their 'extensions'). I'm all for waiting for the dust to settle and then refactoring using whatever the standards body decides, even if that would be against my personal preference. Using something on purpose to try to subvert the process to me smacks of driving on the left hand side when the standard behaviour is to drive on the right. It creates a lot of trouble for no good reason other than to prove that 'you can'. Of course you can. But do you really want to aggravate others just to show that you can ? There is plenty of stuff in the current html standard that goes against my personal preference but I won't let that get in the way of at least trying to comply.
  - sjs382 17y ago
    The 'standards that matter are the ones that are used' attitude is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place (Microsoft up front with their 'extensions'). The "standards will be written as they will be implemented by the browser manufacturers" is exactly the approach that the whatwg has taken on html5: After an inordinate amount of discussions, both in public and privately, on the situation regarding codecs for <video> and <audio> in HTML5, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship. I'm all for waiting for the dust to settle and then refactoring using whatever the standards body decides, even if that would be against my personal preference. Which is exactly the approach i said I was taking. And despite the tone of the tone of your post, I dont seem to recall saying that I was going to continue using rev in html5 even though it was removed from the (draft) spec. I will continue to use it with html4, though.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Ah, ok. Apologies then!

by akirk 17y ago

sjs382 17y ago

A rebuttal: http://erikvold.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/4/21/rev_canonical_good http://erikvold.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/4/21/rev_canonical_g... I've disagreed with the rev attribute being removed from html5 since I read about it. The draft isn't final though, so time will tell... But back to html4... Google, Yahoo and MS all support (or have announced support for) rev="canonical". The only "standards" that matter are the ones that are used. :)

jacquesm 17y ago
> the only "standards" that matter are the ones that are used Right, like upper case html tags and the iframe tag... It's a difficult time for the web, and real standards are hard to come by. The 'standards that matter are the ones that are used' attitude is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place (Microsoft up front with their 'extensions'). I'm all for waiting for the dust to settle and then refactoring using whatever the standards body decides, even if that would be against my personal preference. Using something on purpose to try to subvert the process to me smacks of driving on the left hand side when the standard behaviour is to drive on the right. It creates a lot of trouble for no good reason other than to prove that 'you can'. Of course you can. But do you really want to aggravate others just to show that you can ? There is plenty of stuff in the current html standard that goes against my personal preference but I won't let that get in the way of at least trying to comply.
- sjs382 17y ago
  The 'standards that matter are the ones that are used' attitude is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place (Microsoft up front with their 'extensions'). The "standards will be written as they will be implemented by the browser manufacturers" is exactly the approach that the whatwg has taken on html5: After an inordinate amount of discussions, both in public and privately, on the situation regarding codecs for <video> and <audio> in HTML5, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship. I'm all for waiting for the dust to settle and then refactoring using whatever the standards body decides, even if that would be against my personal preference. Which is exactly the approach i said I was taking. And despite the tone of the tone of your post, I dont seem to recall saying that I was going to continue using rev in html5 even though it was removed from the (draft) spec. I will continue to use it with html4, though.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Ah, ok. Apologies then!