W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06] extension tokens

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:56:19 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uxouv52a64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:53:27 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Since this is Last Call I thought I should mention that I much prefer  
>> the WHATWG wiki approach to extensions over requiring people to use an  
>> overly long URI. It both provides people with a short token and  
>> provides other people with a clue as to what is happening in the world.
>> ...
> The draft does not require people to use URIs at all. There's a registry  
> for tokens, just like in the HTML5 proposal. The only difference is that  
> the registry lives somewhere else, and the registry procedure has  
> different requirements.

The requirements will just lead to people using URIs I think (or rather, completely ignoring the registry as there was no registry practice so far) just like people use x-something all the time rather than vnd.something or register something more appropriate.

Barriers to registries need to be pretty low I think. E.g. due to high registry requirements for media types font files will be sniffed until eternity. JavaScript/ECMAScript has about six media types and were only registered due to a dedicated individual, not because the ECMAScript standardization comittee particuarly cared one way or another.

Same for URI schemes. You're better of on Wikipedia than at IANA. :/

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 18:57:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:50 UTC