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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:48:07 +0200
Message-ID: <4C6A3EB7.307@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On 17.08.2010 09:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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 ?

Sam reported "rough consensus" in March:

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0067.html>

Not sure what happened since then, except that we had an endless 
discussion about who's going to test the registry. I don't think there 
was any discussion about the "specification requirement" aspect, thus my 
assumption that we agreed on it.

>> 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.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

So why didn't you raise that issue when the CfC was running?

> 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.)

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10#section-6.2.1>:

    Registration requests consist of the completed registration template
    below, typically published in an RFC or Open Standard (in the sense
    described by [RFC2026], Section 7).  However, to allow for the
    allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert may
    approve registration once they are satisfied that a specification
    will be published.

Best regards, Julian



Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 07:48:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 August 2010 07:48:49 GMT