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

Re: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:53:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4B7BBC95.6000307@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 09.02.2010 11:16, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>> Change proposal follows.
>>>
>>> Summary
>>>
>>> This change replaces the Wiki link relation registry with that
>>> defined in "Web Linking," an IETF draft proposed for Standards Track,
>>> while aligning HTML5's use of links with that described therein.
>>
>> This seems relatively uncontroversial; I suggest we just go with the
>> usual lightweight bug process for this rather than the full-on Change
>> Proposal process and so on.
>>
>> My only suggestion really would be that we get several different
>> people to exercise the registry to see how and whether it works in
>> practice. We could have a few people register the various HTML5
>> fields, and a few people register some rel values from the spec or
>> from the wiki, and see if the process is effective. If it is, then
>> referring to it seems like a no-brainer and I'd be happy to make the
>> appropriate changes.
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Note that the registry can only be tested once
> draft-nottingham-http-link-header has been approved by the IESG. Right
> now it's still in IETF LC (ending next week). See
>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-nottingham-http-link-header/>
> ...

That being said, the *predecessor* (the Atom link relation type 
registry) has been active for several years now and can be tested right 
away; it currently ~25 entries, the newest were earlier this year.
So if you want to test with a link relation that could apply to Atom as 
well, go ahead. rel=canonical seems to be a good candidate, having 
multiple implementations already (right?).

Instructions: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4287.html#rfc.section.7.1>

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 09:54:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC