W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:16:11 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <E2F909C2-A4C2-487A-B620-E7300524BC6D@apple.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>

On Aug 16, 2010, at 2:54 AM, David Singer wrote:

> The overall these of this email seems to be that it's easier to edit a wiki, than to write a stable specification, and register the code-points in it in a formal registry.  Did we really need such an email to know that, or am I missing your point?

I believe Ian provided at least two other pieces of information that were news to me:

- The HTML5 spec (as currently drafted) requires some additional metadata about each current and future link relation. However, the designated experts for the IANA link relation type registry do not think it is a good idea to maintain this particular metadata in the general link registry, and suggested a parallel HTML-specific registry.

- At least some of the designated experts for the IANA link relation type registry seemed to indicate that all future entries in the registry should be appropriate for all contexts where they might be used (including the HTTP Link header, and Atom link relations), and so future (or current de facto standard) link relations that are HTML-specific by nature may well be rejected. Such relations might need to go in a separate HTML-specific registry.

I found these pieces of information notable, because:

(a) The suggestion of an additional/parallel HTML-specific link relation registry is not in line with the current ISSUE-27 Change Proposal, which calls for using the IANA registry exclusively (so perhaps now is a good time to call for alternate proposals).

(b) Given the above pieces of information, it seems that the current ISSUE-27 Change Proposal, if not revised, could have significant normative impact beyond just the registration mechanism for link types.

(Ian may have had other important points as well, I will leave it to others to point them out if they wish; these were the two data points that stood out most to me.)

Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 18:16:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 August 2010 18:16:45 GMT