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

Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:39:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4C6985C9.5000904@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On 16.08.2010 20:16, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> 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.

May I point to 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0135.html> and 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0139.html>???

Also, the 2nd part is not entirely correct, see again the emails quoted 
above. What I suggested is that the distinctions that the HTML spec 
currently makes may not make sense, and that the WG should reconsider them.

> - 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.

What *was* said is that a new relation type that doesn't work in the 
HTTP link header and/or in HTML's <link> element is likely to be 
rejected, because that would mean it doesn't qualify as a link relation.

> 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).

And again, that suggestion IMHO wasn't made (yet).

Can we please have a discussion about that the spec currently says 
first? Again: 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0139.html>.

> (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.
> ...

I agree that the current change proposal for ISSUE-27 would need updating.

Anyway, Ian's attempt of registering the metadata was very useful in 
that it has shown that delegating *all* of the information that is HTML 
related to the IANA registry may not be a good idea.

To make progress with this, it would be very useful if we could consider 
whether all of this information actually makes sense, and whether it is 
consistent in the spec.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 18:39:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 August 2010 18:39:54 GMT