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 23:58:34 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uxo3bwpi64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:44:32 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> The WHATWG WIKI currently states:
> "For the "Status" section to be changed to "Accepted", the proposed  
> keyword must either have been through the Microformats process, and been  
> approved by the Microformats community; or must be defined by a W3C  
> specification in the Candidate Recommendation or Recommendation state.  
> If it fails to go through this process, it is "Rejected"."
> A W3C Recommendation would be sufficient for the IANA registry proposed  
> by the link header draft ("specification required").
> Which leaves the "Microformats process", and I'm not convinced that it's  
> easier to go through that one than to meet the requirements in the link  
> header spec.

Whether your extension gets endorsed or not I do not particularly care about. I just care about it being easy to register it somewhere to start with. So people can find it and see if it makes sense. If it does I'm sure that in the long run it will go from "Proposal" to "Accepted".

And if it's not "Accepted" at least it's still registered making it clear it might be in use somewhere which in turn makes it easier for people to pick a name that does not clash with existing practice. The proposed registry horribly fails at this, much like the IANA registry for URI schemes.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 21:59:17 UTC

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