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

Re: ISSUE-27, was: Report on testing of the link relations registry

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:36:50 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vhknfnxm64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:19:01 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> When we discussed the Link header spec and ISSUE-27 we (the WG) agreed  
> that "Specification Required" is the right thing to have (the proposed  
> resolution of ISSUE-27 is marked has having WG consensus).

I see no such thing in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27 ?


> Your point seems to be that even writing a spec is too much work. I  
> disagree with that, but that's it. There's your reply :-).

Thank you for reading my email and missing my point entirely.


Writing a specification as a barrier to enter the registry is too much  
work. Many link relations have seen widespread adoption before a formal  
specification was written. I have no objection against requiring a  
specification before formally approving a link relation, but putting one  
in the registry (marked as "proposal") should be very very easy.

As e.g. XPointer solved it: http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-policy.html  
(I agree with Ian though that not adding more systems for the W3C Team to  
maintain would be a good thing and that therefore a wiki is better.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 07:37:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 August 2010 07:37:33 GMT