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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:56:53 -0800
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <0C48A178-7334-4D5B-86FC-77014286B123@apple.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Hi Mark,

On Feb 17, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
> On 17/02/2010, at 8:53 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> 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?).
>
>
> Well, yes, but that wouldn't test the new procedures, which I think  
> is the point.
>
> Also, since canonical was IIRC a collaboration between several  
> companies, they should work together on the registration...

The plan to test the new procedures was discussed on #html-wg, and I  
noticed that there is no allowance in your draft for provisional  
registration; all registrations are full registrations and require a  
specification.

By comparison:

- Header Fields have a mechanism for provisional registration per http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3864.txt
- URI schemes have a mechanism for provisional registration per http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4395.txt
- MIME types have vendor, personal and experimental trees that serve a  
similar role to provisional registration per http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4288.txt

This is not an objection, because I must admit I have no strong  
feelings on this issue. But I wonder if this is intentional or an  
oversight?

It seems like many other IANA-maintained registries of values that are  
relevant to Web content have some sort of form of lesser registration  
that bypasses the firm "Specification Required" mandate, allowing  
values that are in actual use to be registered provisionally even if  
no one has written a proper spec yet. It seems to me like this would  
be useful for rel values as well.

Regards,
Maciej
  
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 11:57:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT