W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2008

Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:40:09 +0200
Message-ID: <486CD6B9.2040709@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:12:28 -0700, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 
>> wrote:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02.txt 
>>>
>>
>> This draft suggests both
>>
>>  rel="http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/stylesheet"
>>
>> and
>>
>>  rel="stylesheet"
>>
>> should work. That seems bad as it's not backwards compatible and 
>> complicates the processing model for no good reason.
> 
> I think we could add advice and/or requirements to address that.

At least for the existing relations we need to advise producers to 
produce the short variant.

>> I'm also not really convinced that an IANA registry is the way to go. 
>> The WHATWG wiki (or something equivalent) seems a much more flexible 
>> approach (and is in fact already in use).
> 
> Is there a technical argument behind that, or is it just personal 
> preference? IANA is well-recognised, has processes in place for change 
> control, is accountable for availability, continuity, etc. and is backed 
> by a stable financial structure. I don't see any benefit to making an 
> exception for one type of registry when every other one on the Internet 
> uses IANA, but maybe I'm missing something.

+1.

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 13:40:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:56 UTC