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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:13:31 -0400
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF4B29EF91.7DE24484-ON8525747B.004E004A-8525747B.004E2456@us.ibm.com>
Julian Reschke wrote on 07/03/2008 09:40:09 AM:
>
> 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.

If that advice was present in the document, the feed validator would
certainly implement that advice... for the case of link elements in Atom
feeds.>

> >> 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

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 14:29:42 UTC

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